Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 129
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.

12-1924 < .
SECt E MAG. 2

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE REGARDING THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 2 of 129
CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
A. Background ............................................................................................................. 1 B. General Provisions .................................................................................................. 2 C. Definitions/Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 4 II. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY ................................................................... 11 A. Policy Development, Review, and Implementation ............................................. 11 B. Training on Revised Policies, Procedures, and Practices ..................................... 14 III. USE OF FORCE ................................................................................................................ 14 A. Use of Force Principles ......................................................................................... 14 B. General Use of Force Policy ................................................................................. 15 C. Vehicle Pursuits .................................................................................................... 16 D. Use of Firearms..................................................................................................... 16 E. Use of Canines ...................................................................................................... 17 F. Electronic Control Weapons ................................................................................. 20 G. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray .................................................................................... 22 H. SWAT Teams........................................................................................................ 22 I. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report ..................................... 23 J. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations .............................................................. 24 K. Force Investigation Team ..................................................................................... 28 L. Use of Force Review Board .................................................................................. 32 M. Use of Force Training ........................................................................................... 33 IV. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM .................................................................................... 34 A. Crisis Intervention Planning Committee............................................................... 35 B. Program Development .......................................................................................... 35 C. CIT and First Responder Training ........................................................................ 36 D. Maintenance of CIT Program ............................................................................... 37 V. STOPS, SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS ............................................................................ 38 A. Investigatory Stops and Detentions ...................................................................... 38 B. Searches ................................................................................................................ 38 C. Arrests ................................................................................................................... 40 D. Stop and Search Data Collection and Review ...................................................... 42 E. First Amendment Right to Observe and Record Officer Conduct ........................ 44 F. Stop, Search, and Arrest Training ......................................................................... 45 VI. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS ................................................................................. 46

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 3 of 129
A. Interrogation Restrictions and Equipment ............................................................ 46 B. Detective Selection and Interrogation Training .................................................... 47 VII. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS .......................................................................................... 47 VIII. BIAS-FREE POLICING .................................................................................................... 48 A. Bias-Free Policing Training .................................................................................. 48 B. Ensuring Bias-Free Policing ................................................................................. 49 C. Language Assistance............................................................................................. 51 IX. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS ............................................................................. 54 A. Sexual Assault....................................................................................................... 54 B. Domestic Violence ................................................................................................ 58 X. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT...................................................................................... 60 A. Community and Problem Oriented Policing ......................................................... 60 B. Biennial Community Survey................................................................................. 62 XI. RECRUITMENT ............................................................................................................... 63 A. Comprehensive Recruitment Program .................................................................. 63 XII. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING .................................................................. 65 A. Training Coordination and Planning..................................................................... 65 B. Curriculum Development.. .................................................................................... 67 C. Instructor Selection ............................................................................................... 68 D. Training Evaluation .............................................................................................. 69 E. Recruit Training Academy .................................................................................... 69 F. Field Training Program ......................................................................................... 71 G. In-Service Training ............................................................................................... 72 H. Training Records ................................................................................................... 73 XIII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT.. .................................................................... 73 A. Department-Wide Health and Wellness Program ................................................. 73 XIV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS ............................................ 75 A. Performance Evaluations ...................................................................................... 75 B. Promotions ............................................................................................................ 76 XV. SUPERVISION.................................................................................................................. 77 A. Duties of Supervisors ............................................................................................ 77 B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training............................................................ 79 C. Early Warning System .......................................................................................... 80 D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities......................................... 83 XVI. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM...................................................................... 84 A. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office ....................................................... 85
II

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 4 of 129

B. Coordinating Office Responsibilities .................................................................... 86

C. Secondary Employment Compensation ................................................................ 88

D. Limitations on Secondary Employment Work ..................................................... 88

E. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities ............................................ 92

F. Secondary Employment Supervision.................................................................... 92

XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION........................................................................................................... 94

A. Reporting Misconduct........................................................................................... 94

B. Response to Internally Discovered Infractions ..................................................... 94

C. Preventing Retaliation........................................................................................... 95

D. Staffing, Selection, and Training Requirements ................................................... 95

E. Complaint Information.......................................................................................... 96

F. Complaint Intake, Classification, Assignment, and Tracking .............................. 97

G. Investigation Timeframe ..................................................................................... 100

H. Collection ofEvidence........................................................................................ 101

I.

Analysis of Evidence .......................................................................................... 102

J. Integrity oflnvestigative File and Evidence ....................................................... I03

K. Communication with Complainant..................................................................... 104

L. Discipline Process and Transparency ................................................................. I 04

M. Annual Report ..................................................................................................... I05

XVIII. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT ..................................................................... 105

A. Data Collection and Public Reporting ................................................................ 105

B. United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group ........................... I06

C. District Community Outreach Programs and Meetings ...................................... 106

D. Police-Community Advisory Board ................................................................... 107

E. Community-Based Restorative Justice Project................................................... 108

F. Office of the Independent Police Monitor .......................................................... 108

XIX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT .................................... 108

A. Role of the Monitor............................................................................................. 108

B. Compliance Reviews and Audits ........................................................................ 109

C. Outcome Assessments ........................................................................................ I09

D. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology........................................................ 112

E. Review of Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations .................................... 113

F. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance ....................................... 113

G. Comprehensive Re-Assessment.. ........................................................................ 114

H. Monitor Reports .................................................................................................. 114

iii

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 5 of 129

I.

Coordination with IPM ....................................................................................... 115

J.

Communication between Monitor, Parties, and Public ...................................... 115

K. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts oflnterest..................... 115

L. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit.. ................................................... 116

M. Implementation Assessment and Report............................................................. 116

N. Access and Confidentiality ................................................................................. 117

0. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor ...................................................... 118

P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement .............. 120

Q. Termination of the Agreement............................................................................ 121

iv

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 6 of 129
The City ofNew Orleans ("City"), including the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD" or "Department"), and the United States of America (collectively, "the Parties") enter into this agreement ("Agreement") with the goal of ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Parties have a shared recognition that the ability of a police department to protect the community it serves is only as strong as the relationship it has with that community. Public safety, constitutional policing, and the community's trust in its police force are thus interdependent. The full and sustained implementation of this Agreement is intended to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of New Orleans, and increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.
To achieve these goals, NOPD agrees to fundamentally change the way it polices throughout the New Orleans Community. This Agreement thus requires the City and the Department to implement new policies, training, and practices throughout the Department, including in the areas of: use of force; stops, searches, seizures, and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; discriminatory policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct-complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication.
Noting the general principle that settlements are to be encouraged, particularly settlements between goverrunent entities, and having considered the terms of the measures set forth herein, and that the Defendant agrees to resolve the United States' claims without resort to adversariallitigation, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered in this matter pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
I. INTRODUCTION A. Background
In May 2010, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") formally notified the City that it was initiating an investigation of the New Orleans Police Department for an alleged pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141 ''); the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d
I

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 7 of 129
("Safe Streets Act"); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI").
As part of its investigation, DOJ, in conjunction with its police-practices consultants, conducted a detailed fact-finding review, including numerous tours ofNOPD facilities; interviews with New Orleans officials, NOPD command staff, supervisors, and police officers; review ofmore than 36,000 pages of documents; and meetings with residents, community groups, andother stakeholders within the City. In addition, DOJ participated in detailed exit interviews between its police-practices consultants and NOPD officials following each investigatory tour.
DOJ issued a written report of its findings ("Report") on March 16, 2011. The Report documents DOJ' s finding of a number of patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct and details DOJ's concerns about a number ofNOPD policies and practices.
DOJ's investigation was conducted with the full cooperation of the City and NOPD. This Agreement is the product of a cooperative effort built on the Parties' mutual commitment to constitutional policing. The Parties acknowledge the many NOPD officers who perform their difficult jobs diligently and with integrity. B. General Provisions
1. This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority granted to DOJ under Section
14141, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law. 2. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to undermine the lawful authority ofNOPD police . officers to use reasonable and necessary force, effect arrests, conduct searches or make seizures, or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations to the people of New Orleans in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Louisiana. 3. 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 municipal law including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor is the City's entry into this Agreement an admission by the City, NOPD, or any officer or employee of either entity, that they have engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise improper activities or conduct.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 8 of 129
4. This Court has jurisdiction over 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 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the Defendant is located in and the claims arose in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 5. The Parties enter into this Agreement 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 the expeditious implementation of corrective measures, promotes the use ofthe best available policing practices and procedures, and avoids the diversion of federal and City resources to adversarial actions by the Parties. 6. This Agreement resolves all claims in the United States' Complaint filed in this case. This Agreement also constitutes a full and complete settlement of any and all civil claims the United States may have as of the Effective Date against the City and its officers, employees, or agents, regarding any alleged pattern or practice of conduct by New Orleans police officers in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities. 7. 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. 8. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting, investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations ofNOPD or any aspect thereof, the City agrees to ensure these functions and entities are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and shall incorporate the terms of this Agreement into the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency. 9. 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. Accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. 10. In the event of any public-records request, requesting drafts of this Agreement or communications among the Parties leading to this Agreement, the Court will maintain continuing
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 9 of 129
jurisdiction over any such request. Further, the Parties may assert in any action, motion, subpoena, or request for disclosure of information the ongoing applicability of a settlement privilege to all such drafts or communications among the Parties leading to this Agreement. 11. This Agreement is not intended to limit or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against the City, NOPD, or any officer or employee thereof, for their conduct or the conduct ofNOPD officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims by third parties, including those arising from city, state, or federal law. This Agreement does not expand, nor will it be construed to expand, access to any City, NOPD, or DOJ documents, except as expressly provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other than DOJ, the Defendant, and the Monitor. 12. The City is responsible for providing necessary support and resources to NOPD to enable NOPD to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 13. The Defendant, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and successors, is enjoined from engaging in conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the laws of the United States. C. Definitions/Abbreviations 14. The following terms and definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
a) "Active resistance" means a subject attempts to attack or does attack an officer; exhibits aggressive behavior (e.g., lunging toward the officer, striking the officer with hands, fists, kicks or any instrument that may be perceived as a weapon such as knife or stick); or exhibits defensive resistance (e.g., attempts to leave the scene, flee, hide from detection, or pull away from the officer's grasp). Verbal statements, bracing, or tensing alone do not constitute active resistance. b) "Apprehension" means the arrest, capture, or taking into custody of a person. c) "Arrest" is the taking of one person into custody by another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint of the person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him. An arrest is a restraint of greater scope or duration than an investigatory stop or detention. An arrest is lawful when supported by probable cause. d) "AVL" means "Automatic Vehicle Locator," a device that automatically tracks the geographic position of a vehicle and transmits that information to a receiver.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 10 of 129
e) "Bilingual staff' means a staff person who has demonstrated and verified proficiency, pursuant to generally accepted objective criteria, in both spoken English and at least one other language as authorized by NOPD. f) "Bite ratio" means the number of canine apprehensions that result in a bite, divided by the number of canine apprehensions. Accidental and/or unintentional bites shall be included in the numerator. g) "Body cavity search" means any visual or physical inspection of a person's genital or anal region with or without any physical contact with or intrusion into a body cavity. h) "Canine apprehension" means any time a canine is deployed and plays a clear and welldocumented role in the capture of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene of an arrest shall not count as a canine apprehension. i) "Canine deployment" means any situation, except one involving an on-leash article search only, in which a canine is brought to the scene and used in an attempt to locate or apprehend a suspect, whether or not a suspect actual!y is located or apprehended. j) "CCMS" means Criminal Case Management System. k) "Civilian Employee" means any non-sworn personnel employed by NOPD, on either a temporary or permanent basis, in either a paid or unpaid capacity. I) "City" means the City of New Orleans, including its agents, officers, and employees. m) "CIT" means Crisis Intervention Team. n) "Clearance" means an arrest leading to prosecution for an offense is made or an offense is cleared by exception. Offenses cleared by exception must be supported by all of the following factors: 1) the identity of the offender is known; 2) probable cause exists to support arrest and prosecution of the offender; and 3) the exact location of the offender is known, but something prevents the immediate arrest, such as the death of the offender, including suicide, or the offender is currently in custody at a correctional facility in another jurisdiction. o) "Complainant" means any person, including an NOPD officer or employee, who makes a complaint against NOPD or an officer or employee ofNOPD. p) "Complaint" means any complaint regarding NOPD services, policy or procedure, any claim for damages, or any criminal matter that alleges possible misconduct by an NOPD officer or employee. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "complaint" does not include
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 11 of 129
any allegation of employment discrimination. q) "Court" means the United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana presiding over this case. r) "Critical firearm discharge" means a discharge of a firearm by an NOPD officer, including discharges where no person or animal is struck. Range and training firings, destruction of animals, and off-duty hunting discharges where no person is struck are not critical firearms discharges. s) "Custodial Interrogation" means words or actions on the part of an officer that the officer knows or should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, after a person has been taken into custody. t) "DA" means the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office. u) "Demographic Category" means age, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. v) "Discipline" means a personnel action for violation of an established law, regulation, rule, or NOPD policy, including an admonishment, written reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal. w) "Discriminatory Policing" means selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law, including the selecting or rejecting of particular policing tactics or strategies based on membership in a demographic category specified in this Agreement. Discriminatory policing does not include using race, ethnicity, or any other status in any reliable and. recent suspect-specific description. x) "District" means one of the eight police service areas ofNOPD located throughout New Orleans that is led through the chain of command by a District Commander. y) "DOJ" means the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and its agents and employees. z) "DVU" means Domestic Violence Unit. aa) "ECW'' means Electronic Control Weapon, a weapon designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and overrides the subject's voluntary motor responses. bb) "ECW application" means the contact and delivery of electrical impulse to a subject with an Electronic Control Weapon.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 12 of 129
cc) "Effective Date" means the day this Agreement is entered by the Court. dd) "EWS" means Early Warning System. ee) "FBI" means the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation. fi) "Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, carbine, or machine gun, as well as any instrument capable of discharging a bullet or shot. gg) "FIT" means Force Investigation Team, the NOPD unit tasked with conducting investigations of serious uses of force; uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer; uses of force by NOPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; and uses of force reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant, the Superintendant's designee, or PIB. FIT shall also investigate all instances where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD. hh) "Force Statement" means a written statement documenting a use of force as required by this Agreement. ii) "FTO" means Field Training Officer. jj) "IACP" means International Association of Chiefs of Police. kk) "ICO" means Integrity Control Officer. ll) "Implement" or "implementation" means the development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of all relevant personnel, and the consistent and verified performance ofthat policy or procedure in actual practice. mm) "Including" means "including, but not limited to." nn) "Interpretation" means the act of listening to a communication in one language (source language) and orally converting it into another language (target language), while retaining the same meaning. oo) "Interview" means questioning for the purpose of eliciting facts or information. pp) "Investigatory stop" or "investigatory detention" means a temporary restraint where the subject of the stop or detention reasonably believes that s/he is not free to leave. An investigatory stop or detention may be a pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stop. qq) "IPM" means the Independent Police Monitor. rr) "Less-lethal force" means force employed that is neither likely nor intended to cause death or serious injury. ss) "Less-lethal weapon" means any apprehension or restraint tool that, when used as
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 13 of 129
designed and intended, is less likely to cause death or serious injury than a conventional lethal weapon (e.g., firearm). tt) "Lethal force" means any use of force likely to cause death or serious physical injury, (e.g., the use of a firearm, neck hold, or strike to the head, neck, or throat with a hard object). uu) "LEP" means Limited English Proficient, and refers to a person who does not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g., speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g., reading or writing). vv) "LGBT" means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. ww) "Major Special Events" include Mardi Gras; Jazz Fest; Essence Music Festival; French Quarter Festival; Voodoo Fest; college bowl and college championship events; professional sporting events; and other events as designated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, the City Attorney, City Council, or the Superintendent of Police as a "Major Special Event." xx) "MCTU" means Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit. yy) "Monitor" means a person or team of people who shall be selected to monitor and report on implementation of this Agreement. zz) ''Neck hold" means one of the following types of holds: (1) arm-bar control hold, a hold that inhibits breathing by compression of the airway in the neck; (2) carotid restraint hold, a hold that inhibits blood flow by compression of the blood vessels in the neck; (3) a lateral vascular neck constraint; or (4) a hold with a knee or other object to the back of a prone subject's neck. A neck hold shall be considered lethal force. aaa) "NOFJC" means the New Orleans Family Justice Center. bbb) "Non-disciplinary corrective action" means action other than discipline taken by an NOPD supervisor to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance. ccc) "NOPD" means the New Orleans Police Department and its agents, officers, supervisors, and employees (both sworn and unsworn). ddd) "NOPD unit" means any designated organization of officers within NOPD, including districts and specialized units. eee) "NOPDAI" means NOPD Authorized Interpreter, a bilingual NOPD employee, who has
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 14 of 129
been authorized to interpret for others in certain situations, such as interviews, interrogations, or taking and responding to citizen complaints. fff) "NOPDAI List" means a list ofNOPD personnel who are bilingual and are authorized to act as volunteer interpreters. ggg) "Passive Resistance" means behavior that is unresponsive to police verbal communication or direction (e.g., ignoring or disregarding police attempts at verbal communication or control; going limp; or failing to physically respond or move) and verbal resistance (e.g., verbally rejecting police verbal communication or direction; telling the officer that he or she will not comply with police direction, to leave alone, or not bother him or her). Bracing, tensing, linking arms, or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into custody constitutes passive resistance. hhh) "PCAB" means Police-Community Advisory Board. iii) "Personnel" means NOPD officers and employees. jjj) "PIB" means the Public Integrity Bureau, the NOPD unit charged with conducting internal and administrative investigations ofNOPD officers and employees. kkk) "Police officer" or "officer" means any law enforcement agent employed by NOPD, including supervisors and cadets. 111) "Policies and Procedures" means written regulations or directives, regardless of the name ofthe regulation or directive, describing the duties, functions, and obligations ofNOPD officers and/or employees, and providing specific direction in how to fulfill those duties, functions, or obligations. mmm) "POST" means the Louisiana Police Officer Standards and Training Council. nnn) "Probable cause" means that the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time would justify a prudent person in believing that the suspect committed or was committing an offense. ooo) "Reasonable Force" means force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances and the minimum amount of force necessary to effect an arrest or protect the officer or other person. ppp) "Reasonable suspicion" means articulable facts that, within the totality ofthe circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity has been or is about to be committed.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 15 of 129
qqq) "RSE" means Recurring Secondary Employment. m) "SART" means Sexual Assault Response Team. sss) "Seizure" or "detention" occurs when an officer's words or actions would convey to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave. ttt) "Serious physical injury" means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death; causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement; or causes impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb. uuu) "Serious use of force" means: (1) all uses of!ethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (7) all canine bites; (8) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (9) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject. vvv) "Service firearm" means any firearm issued to sworn personnel by the Department. www) "Shall" or "Agrees to" means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty. xxx) "Specialized unit" means a temporary or permanent organization of officers within NOPD, whose operational objectives are focused on a specific law enforcement purpose beyond general patrol or criminal investigations, and that require enhanced training on police tactics, strategies, or techniques. yyy) "Strip search" means any search of an individual requiring the removal or rearrangement of some or all clothing to permit visual inspection ofthe suspect's groin!genital area, buttocks, female breasts, or undergarments covering these areas. zzz) "Superintendent" means the Superintendent ofNOPD.
aaaa) "Supervisor" means a sworn NOPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn NOPD personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers. bbbb) "Translation" means the replacement of written text from one language (source language) with an equivalent written text in another language (target language).
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 16 of 129
ecce) "Use of force" means physical effort to compel compliance by an unwilling subject above unresisted handcuffing, including pointing a frrearm at a person. A reportable use of force is any force above hand control or escort techniques applied for the purposes of handcuffing, or escort techniques that are not used as pressure point compliance techniques, do not result in injury or complaint of injury, and are not used to overcome resistance. dddd) "Use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer" means force that a reasonable and trained supervisor would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent circumstances of the use of force, such as the level of the force used as compared to the resistance encountered, or discrepancies in the use of force as described by the officer and the use of force as evidenced by any resulting injuries, witness statements, or other evidence. eeee) "Use of Force Report" means a written report documenting a supervisor's investigation of a use of force as required by this Agreement. ffff) "UFRB" means Use of Force Review Board. gggg) "USAO" means the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans. hhhh) "VAW" means violence against women. iiii) "Vehicle stop" means any instance where an NOPD officer directs a civilian operating a motor vehicle of any type to stop and the driver is detained for any length oftime.
II. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department's core values and priorities, and provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all NOPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Policy Development, Review, and Implementation 15. NOPD agrees to develop comprehensive and agency-wide policies and procedures that ensure consistency with, and full implementation of, this Agreement. Unless otherwise noted, NOPD agrees that all policies, procedures, and manuals shall be developed within 365 days of the Effective Date.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 17 of 129
16. NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall define terms clearly, comply with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement, and comport with best practices. 17. NOPD agrees to apply policies uniformly and hold officers accountable for complying with NOPD policy and procedure. 18. NOPD agrees to review each policy or procedure 365 days after it is implemented and annually thereafter, to ensure that the policy or procedure provides effective direction to NOPD personnel and remains consistent with the Agreement, best practices, and current law. NOPD also agrees to review and revise policies and procedures as necessary upon notice of a significant policy deficiency during audits or reviews. NOPD agrees that Department-wide policies and procedures shall be collected in a Department-level policy and procedure manual, and unit-wide policies and procedures shall be collected in unit-level policy and procedure manuals. NOPD agrees to develop and implement policy and procedure manuals for, at a minimum, the following NOPD functions:
a) Field operations, including patrol, task forces, and special operations; b) Supervisory Procedural Manual; c) PIB, including case and records management, administrative investigations, confidential investigations, parallel criminal and administrative investigations, audits, and officer drug testing; d) Use of Force Reporting, Investigation, and Review, including both Supervisory and FIT investigations; e) Criminal investigations, including sub-units assigned to investigate homicides, sexual assaults, domestic violence, narcotics, vice, and illegal firearms; and f) Recruitment and Training, including Academy and In-Service training. 19. NOPD agrees that these manuals shall incorporate and otherwise be consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. 20. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall set out a schedule for completing all policies, procedures, and manuals within 365 days of the Effective Date. 21. NOPD agrees to submit new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to: Use, Reporting, and Review of Force; Crisis Intervention Team; Stop, Searches, and Arrest; Custodial Interrogations; Biased Policing; Community Engagement; Academy and In-service Training; Supervision; and Misconduct Investigations ("the specified provisions"), to the
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 18 of 129
Monitor and DOJ for review and comment prior to publication and implementation. If the Monitor or DOJ object that the proposed new or revised policy, procedure, or manual does not incorporate the requirements of this Agreement, or is inconsistent with this Agreement or the law, it shall note this objection in writing to all parties within 15 business days ofthe receipt of the policy from NOPD. If neither the Monitor nor DOJ object to the new or revised policy, procedure, or manual, NOPD agrees to implement it within 30 days of it being provided to DOJ and the Monitor. 22. NOPD shall have 15 days to resolve any objections to the new or revised policies, procedures, and manuals implementing the specified provisions. If, after this 15-day period has run, DOJ maintains its objection, then the Monitor shall have an additional 15 days to resolve the objection. If either party disagrees with the Monitor's resolution of the objection, either Party may ask the Court to resolve the matter. The Monitor shall determine whether in some instances an additional amount of time is necessary to ensure full and proper review of policies. Factors to consider in making this determination include: 1) complexity of the policy; 2) extent of disagreement regarding policy; 3) number ofpolicies provided simultaneously; and 4) extraordinary circumstances delaying review by DOJ or the Monitor. In determining whether these factors warrant additional time for review, the Monitor shall fully consider the importance of prompt implementation of policies, and shall allow additional time for policy review only where it is clear that additional time is necessary to ensure full and proper review. Any extension to the above timelines by the Monitor shall also toll NOPD's deadline for policy completion. 23. For all other new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to this Agreement, NOPD agrees to provide the policy, procedure, or manual to DOJ and the Monitor for review and comment. Within 30 days of receipt, DOJ or the Monitor may notify NOPD of any concerns that it has regarding the policy's compliance with this Agreement or the law. If concerns are expressed, NOPD agrees to review the policy, procedure, or manual and modify as necessary to ensure full implementation of, and compliance with, this Agreement and the law. If DOJ or the Monitor believes that the policy, procedure, or manual remains inconsistent with this Agreement or the law, it may ask the Court to resolve the matter.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 19 of 129
B. Training on Revised Policies, Procedures, and Practices 24. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide an opportunity for each officer and employee to learn about this Agreement and the responsibilities of each officer and employee pursuant to it. 25. Within 90 days of issuing a policy or procedure pursuant to this Agreement, NOPD agrees to ensure that all relevant NOPD personnel have received and read their responsibilities pursuant to the policy or procedure, including the requirement that each officer or employee report violations of policy; that supervisors of all ranks be held accountable for identifying and responding to policy or procedure violations by personnel under their command; and that personnel be held accountable for policy and procedure violations. NOPD agrees to document that each relevant NOPD officer or other employee has received and read the policy. Training beyond roll call, or similar training, will be necessary for many new policies to ensure officers understand and can perform their duties pursuant to the policy. 26. Unless otherwise noted, the training required pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered within 365 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall set out a schedule for delivering all training required by this Agreement within 365 days of the Effective Date.
III. USE OF FORCE NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to effect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and deescalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Use of Force Principles 27. Use of force by NOPD officers, regardless of the type of force or weapon used, shall abide by the following requirements: a) officers shall use advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion, when possible, before resorting to force;
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 20 of 129
b) force shall be de-escalated immediately as resistance decreases; c) when feasible based on the circumstances, officers will use disengagement; area containment; surveillance; waiting out a subject; summoning reinforcements; and/or calling in specialized units, in order to reduce the need for force and increase officer and civilian safety; d) officers shall allow individuals time to submit to arrest before force is used wherever possible; e) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit neck holds, except where lethal force is authorized; f) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit head strikes with a hard object, except where lethal force is authorized; g) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit using force against persons in handcuffs, except as objectively reasonable to prevent imminent bodily harm to the officer or another person or persons, or, as objectively reasonable, where physical removal is necessary to overcome passive resistance; h) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit the use of force above unresisted handcuffing to overcome passive resistance, except that physical removal is permitted as necessary and objectively reasonable; i) unholstering a firearm and pointing it at a person constitutes a use of force, and shall accordingly be done only as objectively reasonable to accomplish a lawful police objective; j) officers shall not use force to attempt to effect compliance with a command that is unlawful. Any use of force by an officer to subdue an individual resisting arrest or detention is unreasonable when the initial arrest or detention of the individual was unlawful; k) immediately following a use of force, officers and, upon arrival, a supervisor shall inspect and observe subjects for injury or complaints of pain resulting from the use of force, and immediately obtain any necessary medical care. This may require an officer to provide emergency first aid until professional medical care providers are on scene. B. General Use of Force Policy 28. NOPD agrees to develop and implement an overarching agency-wide use offorce policy that complies with applicable law and comports with best practices and current professional standards. The comprehensive use of force policy shall include all force techniques, technologies, and weapons, both lethal and less-lethal, that are available to NOPD officers,
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 21 of 129
including standard-issue weapons that are made available to all officers, and weapons that are
made available only to specialized units. The comprehensive use of force policy shall clearly define and describe each force option and the circumstances under which use of such force is appropriate. The general use of force policy will incorporate the use of force principles articulated above, and shall specify that the unreasonable use of force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. 29. In addition to a primary agency-wide use offorce policy, NOPD agrees to develop and implement policies and protocols for each authorized weapon, including each of the types of force addressed below. No officer shall carry any weapon, or use force, that is not authorized by the Department. NOPD use of force policies shall include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon. C. Vehicle Pursuits 30. NOPD agrees to prohibit vehicle pursuits, except where an officer obtains express supervisory approval, and the officer and supervisor have considered multiple factors and determined that the immediate danger to the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large. NOPD agrees to strictly prohibit the creation of roadblocks (i.e., completely blocking the roadway with vehicles or any obstructions, with the exception of approved devices designed to demobilize the pursued vehicle's movement) during a vehicle pursuit, intentionally positioning oneself in the path of the pursued vehicle, boxing in a violator with moving vehicles, and ramming a violator. 31. NOPD agrees to track and analyze vehicle pursuit, including the violation that prompted the pursuit; the officer(s) involved in the pursuit; the supervisor approving the pursuit; the outcome of the pursuit; any officer, suspect, or bystander injuries or deaths; property damage; and related criminal or civil legal actions. This data and analysis shall be included in the EWS and in NOPD's Use of Force Annual report. D. Use of Firearms 32. Officers shall not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition while on-duty. 33. All officers' firearms shall be filled with the capacity number of rounds while on-duty. 34. Critical firearm discharges by officers on- or off-duty shall be reported and investigated. 35. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from a moving vehicle or at a moving vehicle unless the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force, other than the vehicle itself, against
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 22 of 129
the officer or another person, and such action is necessary for self defense or to protect the other person; shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of, or reach inside, a moving vehicle; and, where possible, shall attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle before discharging their weapon. 36. Officers shall not draw or exhibit a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that a situation may escalate to the point where lethal force would be authorized. NOPD policy and training shall require and teach proper techniques for unholstering, drawing, or exhibiting a firearm. 37. Officers shall be required at least once each year to successfully qualify with each firearm they are authorized to use or carry while on-duty. Officers who fail to qualify shall immediately relinquish NOPD issued firearms on which they failed to qualify. Those officers who still fail to qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Critical firearms discharge related data and analysis shall be tracked in the EWS and in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report. E. Use of Canines 38. DOJ acknowledges that NOPD has implemented an interim canine policy and has initiated significant improvements in its canine operations, including improvements in the quality and amount of training of canine teams, improvements in handler control of canines, personnel changes, and equipment procurement. Building on these steps, NOPD agrees to finalize and implement canine policies and procedures that comply with applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement, and that comport with best practices and current professional standards. 39. Canine handlers shall limit off-leash canine deployments, searches, and other instances where there is an increased risk of a canine bite to a suspect to instances in which the suspect is wanted for a violent felony or is reasonably suspected to be armed based upon individualized information specific to the subject. 40. A canine handler shall keep his or her canine within visual and auditory range during deployments at all times, except when a canine clears a threshold (e.g., rounding a comer, entering a room, ascending/descending a stairwell). 41. A canine supervisor shall be on call or on-duty at all times. A canine handler shall have approval from a canine supervisor (sergeant or higher) prior to deployment. If the handler is unable to contact a canine-unit supervisor, the handler shall seek approval from the watch
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 23 of 129
commander before the canine can be deployed. The approving supervisor shall not serve as a canine handler in the deployment. 42. Canine handlers shall issue three loud and clear warnings that a canine will be deployed and advise the suspect to surrender, unless such warnings impose an imminent threat of danger to the canine handler or other officers on scene. A canine handler shall allow a sufficient period of time between each warning to provide a suspect an opportunity to surrender. These warnings shall be given in either Spanish or Vietnamese if the suspect is reasonably believed to be a Latino or Vietnamese LEP individual. 43. Canine handlers will only allow their canines to engage a suspect by biting if the handler is in visual and auditory range of a suspect and the suspect's actions pose a risk of imminent danger to the handler or others, risk of serious harm to the canine, or if the suspect is actively resisting (active resistance does not include concealment and refusal to surrender without more) or escaping. Handlers will not allow their canine to engage a suspect by biting if a lower level of force could reasonably be expected to control the suspect or allow for the apprehension. 44. In instances where a canine apprehends a suspect by biting, the handler will call the canine off at the first moment the canine can be safely released, taking into account that the average person will struggle if seized or confronted by a canine. 45. Whenever an individual sustains a canine bite, the handler or an on-scene officer shall immediately contact an NOPD dispatcher to request Emergency Medical Services response. If additional medical attention is required, the individual shall be transported to a medical facility for treatment. 46. For each canine apprehension, the involved handler, as well as all other officers who used or observed force, shall complete a Force Statement before the end of shift. In addition to the information that must be included in all Force Statements, a canine handler's Force Statement documenting a canine apprehension shall include the following: (1) whether there was contact between the canine and the subject, including contact with the subject's clothing; (2) documentation of the duration of the canine's contact with a subject; and (3) the approximate distance of the canine from the handler at time of apprehension. In addition, in all apprehensions where there is canine contact, visible injury to a suspect, or a complaint of injury, an uninvolved supervisor shall be summoned to the scene for the purpose of completing a Use of Force Report consistent with investigative requirements established under this Agreement.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 24 of 129
47. An uninvolved canine supervisor shall evaluate each canine deployment for compliance with NOPD policy and state and federal law, and document this evaluation. 48. NOPD agrees to establish and maintain a canine certification program that ensures that: (I) canines and their handlers demonstrate control and proficiency in specific, widely accepted obedience and criminal apprehension exercises; (2) canines and their handlers receive a minimum of 16 hours of training every four weeks; (3) the trainer keeps detailed records of whether each canine team has met specific control criteria for each control exercise, and what remedial training was given if a canine team was deficient in any area; and (4) the trainer reports all deficiencies to the unit supervisor. The program shall ensure that canines are certified annually by a nationally recognized trainer or organization, and that a canine is not deployed unless its certification is current. NOPD agrees to ensure that the certifying agency's standards are consistent with NOPD policy and standards. 49. NOPD agrees to employ the services of a qualified trainer who is capable of providing certified canine training, and who delivers such training and maintains training records in accordance with NOPD policy and this Agreement. 50. NOPD agrees to centrally record and track each canine team's training records, certification records, and health records, regardless ofwhether individual handlers also maintain records. 51. NOPD agrees to track canine deployments and canine apprehensions, and to calculate and track canine bite ratios on a monthly basis to assess its canine unit and individual canine teams. 52. NOPD agrees to include canine bite ratios as an element of the EWS, and to provide for the review, pursuant to the protocol for that system, ofthe performance of any handler whose bite ratio exceeds 20 percent during a six-month period, or the entire unit if the unit's bite ratio exceeds that threshold, and to require interventions as appropriate. Canine data and analysis shall be included in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report. 53. NOPD agrees not to request or use the services of any canine, whether owned by NOPD or any other jurisdiction, without first ensuring that the canine is controllable and otherwise able to meet the standards required by NOPD policy.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 25 of 129
F. Electronic Control Weapons 54. Officers shall use ECWs only when such force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from physical harm, and other less intrusive means would be ineffective. Officers shall be authorized to use ECWs to control a violent suspect when attempts to subdue the suspect by other tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective and there is a reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach the suspect within contact range. 55. Unless doing so would place any person at risk, officers shall issue a verbal warning to the subject that the ECW will be used prior to its use. Where feasible, the officer will defer ECW application for a reasonable time to allow the subject to comply with the warning. 56. ECWs will not be used where such deployment may cause serious injury or death from situational hazards, including falling, drowning, losing control of a moving vehicle, or igniting a potentially explosive or flammable material or substance, except where lethal force would be permitted. 57. After one standard ECW cycle (5 seconds), the officer shall reevaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Officers shall be trained in the risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to the ECW for longer than 15 seconds, whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling, may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Officers shall independently justifY each cycle used against a subject in written Force Statements. 58. Officers shall not intentionally activate more than one ECW at a time against a subject. 59. ECWs shall not be used in drive-stun mode as a pain compliance technique. ECWs shall be used in drive-stun mode only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between officers and the subject, so that officers can consider another force option. 60. ECWs shall not be used against visibly pregnant women, elderly persons, young children, or visibly frail persons, except where lethal force would be permitted, or where the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent risk of serious physical injury. Officers shall determine the reasonableness ofECW use based upon all circumstances, including the subject's age, size, physical condition, and the feasibility of lesser force options. Officers shall be trained in the increased risks that ECWs may present to the above-listed vulnerable populations.
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 26 of 129
61. ECWs may not be applied to a subject's head, neck, or genitalia, except where lethal force would be permitted, or where the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent risk of serious physical injury. 62. ECWs shall not be used on handcuffed subjects, unless doing so is necessary to prevent them from causing serious physical injury to themselves or others, and if lesser attempts of control have been ineffective. 63. Officers shall keep ECWs in a weak-side holster to reduce the chances of accidentally drawing and/or firing a firearm. 64. Officers shall receive annual ECW certifications, which should consist of physical competency; weapon retention; NOPD policy, including any policy changes; technology changes; and scenario-based training. 65. Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by NOPD, in conjunction with medical professionals, on their responsibilities following ECW use, including:
a) the removal of ECW probes, including requiring medical or specially trained NOPD personnel to remove probes that are embedded in a subject's skin, except for probes that are embedded in a subject's head, throat, groin, or other sensitive area, which should be removed by medical personnel only; b) the risk of positional asphyxia, and training officers to use a restraint technique that does not impair the subject's respiration following an ECW application; c) the transportation to a hospital for evaluation of all subjects who: have been exposed to prolonged application (more than 15 seconds); are a member of one of the vulnerable populations listed above; or had an ECW used against them in circumstances presenting a heightened risk of harm, such as subjects under the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium; or were kept in prone restraint after ECW use; and d) the monitoring of all subjects who have received ECW application while in police custody. 66. Officers shall report all ECW discharges (except for training discharges), laser painting, and/or arcing of weapons to their supervisor and the communications command center as soon as possible.
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 27 of 129
67. NOPD agrees to develop and implement integrity safeguards on the use ofECWs to ensure compliance with NOPD policy, including conducting random and directed audits ofECW deployment data. The audits should compare the downloaded data to the officer's Force Statement. Discrepancies within the audit should be addressed and appropriately investigated. 68. NOPD agrees to include the number ofECWs in operation, and the number ofECW uses, as elements of the EWS. Analysis of this data shall include a determination of whether ECWs result in an increase in the use of force, and whether officer and subject injuries are affected by the rate of ECW use. In addition, the analysis shall include laser painting and arcing of weapons to measure the prevention/deterrence effectiveness associated with the use ofECWs. ECW data and analysis shall be included in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report. G. Oleoresin Caosicum Spray 69. NOPD agrees to prohibit the use or possession of Oleoresin Capsicum Spray by on-duty officers, including officers working secondary employment. H. SWATTeams 70. The mission of SOD's Tactical Platoons (currently known as "SWAT' Teams) shall be limited to providing a specialized response to critical situations where a tactical response is required, such as hostage rescue, barricaded subjects, high-risk warrant service and high-risk apprehension, and terrorism response. The policy shall prohibit SWAT tactics and equipment from being deployed or used for routine or "proactive" patrol functions or crime prevention, or for the service of non-high-risk warrants, unless approved in writing by a Deputy Superintendent. This provision does not prohibit SWAT Team members from providing uniformed policing services. 71. NOPD agrees to provide written guidance on what types of warrants may be considered "high-risk," and what tactics are permissible for the service of high-risk warrants. Barring emergency circumstances, the SWAT Tearn shall have the primary responsibility for execution of any high-risk warrant utilizing tactical team officers equipped with special equipment, training, and weapons. 72. In addition to any Use of Force Reports, the SWAT Team shall document its activities in detail, including by preparing written operational plans in consistent formats, and written afteraction reports subsequent to call-outs and deployments to critical situations, such as hostage rescue, barricaded subjects, high-risk warrant service, high-risk apprehension, and terrorism
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 28 of 129
. response. After-action reports shall address any areas of concern related to policy, training, equipment, or tactics. 73. Supervisory review of SWAT Team deployments shall be conducted by an uninvolved, command-level supervisor possessing the requisite knowledge and expertise to analyze and critique specialized response protocols, and shall identifY any policy, training, equipment, or tactical concerns raised by the action. Command staff shall identify areas of concern or particular successes, and shall implement the appropriate response, including modifications to policy, training, equipment, or tactics. 74. No NOPD personnel shall serve on the SWAT Team for more than five consecutive years (or three consecutive years from the Effective Date, whichever is later), unless they provide a specialized-service function (e.g., negotiator, bomb technician). After this period of service, all personnel shall be reassigned for a period of three years before they may return to SWAT 75. NOPD agrees to track and analyze the number of SWAT Team deployments. The analysis shall include the reason for each activation, the legal authority, type of warrant (if applicable), and the result of each deployment, including: (1) the location; (2) the number of arrests; (3) the type of evidence or property seized; (4) whether a forcible entry was required; (5) whether a weapon was discharged by a SWAT Team member; and (6) whether a person or domestic animal was injured or killed. This data analysis shall be entered into the EWS and included in NOPD's annual Use of Force Report. I. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report 76. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy, using a uniform, supervisor Use of Force Report, which will include individual officer Force Statements. NOPD uses of force shall be divided into four levels: a) Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury. b) Level 2 uses of force include use of an ECW (including where an ECW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns).
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 29 of 129
c) Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal. d) Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by this Agreement, and shall be investigated by NOPD's Force Investigation Team. 77. Hand control or escort techniques applied for the purposes of handcuffing or escorts that are not used as pressure point compliance techniques, do not result in injury or complaint of injury, and are not used to overcome resistance, are not reportable uses of force. 78. All officers using a Level 1 through 4 use of force, and officers observing a Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 use of force, shall write a Force Statement before the end of shift, which shall be included in the Use of Force Report. The officer's Force Statement shall include: (1) a detailed account of the incident from the officer's perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a description of every type of force used. 79. Officers' Force Statements shall completely and accurately describe the force used or observed. The use of force reporting policy shall explicitly prohibit the use of conclusory statements without supporting detail, including "boilerplate" or "pat" language (e.g., "furtive movement" or "fighting stance") in all statements and reports documenting use of force. Officers shall be subject to disciplinary action for material omissions or inaccuracies in their Force Statements. 80. Officers who use or observe force shall notify their supervisors immediately following any use of force incident or upon receipt of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported use of force by any officer. Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 81. Use of Force Reports, including Force Statements, shall be maintained centrally by PIB. 82. At least annually, NOPD agrees to analyze the year's force data, including the forcerelated outcome data listed in section XIX.C. below, to determine significant trends; identify and correct deficiencies revealed by this analysis; and document its findings in a public report. J. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations 83. The direct supervisor of the officer using a Level I use of force shall review and approve in writing the Level I use of force before the end of the shift during which the Level I force was
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 30 of 129
used. Supervisors shall elevate and investigate any use of force that appears to have been inappropriately categorized as a Level 1 use of force. 84. The direct supervisor of the officer(s) using force, upon notification of a Level2, Level 3, or Level4 use of force incident or allegation of excessive force, shall respond to the location of occurrence. The direct supervisor of the officer(s) involved in the reportable use offorce incident shall investigate all uses of force, with the exception of:
a) those incidents involving a serious use of force (Level4 uses of force); b) uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, as defined in this Agreement; c) a use of force incident by NOPD personnel of a rank higher than the supervisor assigned to investigate the incident; or d) a use of force investigation reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant or his designee or PIB. 85. A supervisor who was involved in a reportable incident, including by participating in or ordering the force being investigated, shall not investigate the incident or review the Force Statements for approval. 86. For all Level2 and Level 3 uses of force, the investigating supervisor shall: a) respond to the scene, examine the subject of the force for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his/her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider; b) notify PIB immediately of the use of force and obtain a use of force tracking number;
c) identify and collect all relevant evidence and evaluate that evidence to determine whether
the use of force: (1) was consistent with NOPD policy and/or (2) raises any policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns; d) ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use of force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected; e) ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted. In addition, civilian witnesses should be encouraged to provide and sign a written statement in their own words; f) ensure that all officers witnessing a use of force incident by another officer provide a Force
25

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 31 of 129
Statement. Officers involved in a use of force incident shall be separated until interviewed. Group interviews shall be prohibited. Supervisors shall ensure that all Use ofForce Reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors shall not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officers' conduct, where such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. Investigating supervisors shall record all interviews with civilian witnesses and all follow-up interviews with officers, and shall record all interviews with subjects, after advising them of their rights and that they seek to question them only about the use of force. The recording requirements set out in Custodial Interrogations do not apply to subject interviews regarding the use offorce. g) review all Force Statements and ensure that all reports include the information required by this Agreement and NOPD policy; and h) consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. Supervisors will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries. NOPD will train all of its supervisors on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility, incorporating credibility instructions provided to jurors. Where a reasonable and trained supervisor would determine that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor shall immediately notify FIT to respond to the scene. 87. Each supervisor shall provide a written gist to the Division Commander by the end of the shift documenting the supervisor's preliminary determination of the appropriateness of the use of force, including whether the force was reasonable and within policy; whether the injuries appear proportionate to the use offorce described; and summaries of subject, witness, and officer statements. 88. Each supervisor shall complete and document a use of force supervisory investigation using a supervisor's Use of Force Report within 72 hours oflearning of the use offorce. Any extension to this 72-hour deadline must be authorized by a Division Commander. This Report shall include: a) the supervisor's narrative description of the incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fails to justify the officer's conduct based on the supervisor's
26

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 32 of 129
independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident; b) documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report shall specifically state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author ofthe report from determining the identification, phone number or address of those witnesses, the report shall state the reasons why. The report should also include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement; c) the names of all other NOPD employees witnessing the use of force; d) the investigating supervisor's evaluation of the use of force, based on the supervisor's review ofthe evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer's actions appear to be within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser force options; and e) documentation of any non-disciplinary corrective action taken. 89. Upon completion of the supervisor's Use of Force Report, the investigating supervisor shall forward the report through their chain of command to the ICO (if applicable) and/or Division Commander, who shall review the report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard. The Division Commander and/or ICO shall order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility of the findings. 90. Where the findings of the Use of Force Report are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the investigating supervisor's chain of command shall document the reasons for this determination and shall include this documentation as an addendum to the original investigation. The investigating supervisor's superior shall counsel the investigating supervisor regarding the inadequately supported determination and of any investigative deficiencies that led to it. The Division Commander and/or ICOs shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness ofUse of Force Reports prepared by supervisors under their command.
27

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 33 of 129
91. Where an investigating supervisor repeatedly conducts deficient investigations, the supervisor shall receive the appropriate corrective action, including training, demotion, and/or removal from a supervisory position in accordance with performance evaluation procedures and/or Civil Service Rules. 92. Whenever an investigating supervisor, reviewing supervisor, ICO, or Division Commander finds evidence of a use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, he or she shall suspend the force investigation immediately and notify PIB. PIB shall immediately notify FIT, which will take over the investigation. 93. When the Division Commander finds that the investigation is complete and the findings are supported by the evidence, the investigation file shall be forwarded to PIB. PIB shall review the investigation to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by the evidence. 94. At the discretion of the Superintendent, his designee, or PIB, a use of force investigation may be assigned or re-assigned for investigation to FIT or to another supervisor, whether within or outside of the District in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the Unit for further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall be explained in writing. 95. Where, after investigation, a use offorce is found to be out of policy, the Superintendent shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline. Where the use offorce indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the Superintendent shall ensure also that necessary training is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved. K. Force Investigation Team 96. NOPD agrees to establish a single, uniform reporting and investigation/review system for all Level4 uses of force (i.e., serious uses offorce, including critical firearm discharges), as defined by this Agreement. 97. NOPD agrees to ensure that all serious uses of force are investigated fully and fairly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence, and investigative skills to ensure that uses of force that are contrary to law or policy are identified and appropriately resolved; that policy, training, equipment, or tactical deficiencies related to the use of force are identified and corrected; and that investigations of sufficient quality to ensure that officers are held accountable, as necessary are conducted. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to:
a) create a FIT to conduct investigations of serious uses of force, uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, uses of force by NOPD personnel of a rank higher
28

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 34 of 129
than sergeant, or uses of force reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant or his designee or PIB. FIT also shall investigate all instances where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD. FIT shall be comprised of personnel who are specially trained in both criminal and administrative force investigations. Members of FIT shall be assigned to PIB and shall not be assigned to any District. FIT investigations may result in criminal charges, administrative action, or both. b) Within 280 days from the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to recruit, assign, and train a sufficient number of personnel to FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members shall receive 40 hours of FIT-specific training in FIT procedures; call out and investigative protocols; proper roles of on-scene counterparts such as crime scene technicians, the Monitor, the DA, the IPM, and the City Attorney's Office; and investigative equipment and techniques. FIT members shall also receive FIT-specific annual in-service training. c) NOPD agrees to create a FIT procedural manual. The procedural manual shall include:
(1) definitions of all relevant terms; (2) clear statements of the mission and authority of FIT; (3) procedures on report writing; (4) procedures for collecting and processing evidence; (5) procedures to ensure appropriate separation of criminal and administrative investigations in the event of compelled subject officer statements; (6) procedures for consulting with the DA, including ensuring that administrative investigations are not unnecessarily delayed while a criminal investigation is pending; (7) scene management procedures; and (8) management procedures. 98. Where appropriate to ensure the fact and appearance of impartiality, for investigations of serious uses of force or force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, NOPD may refer the incident for investigation by an independent and highly competent entity outside NOPD. 99. NOPD's Homicide Section shall not investigate any NOPD officer-involved serious use of force as defined by this Agreement, or any in-custody death.
29

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 35 of 129
100. In every incident involving a serious use of force, or any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, the supervisor shall immediately notify FIT. Unless it can verify that the supervisor has already done so, FIT shall immediately notify PIB of the use of force and obtain a use of force tracking number. 101. FIT shall respond to the scene of every incident involving a serious use of force, any use offorce indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, any use offorce by an officer of a rank higher than sergeant, and incident where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD, or as ordered by the Superintendent or his designee or PIB. 102. The Commander ofPIB shall immediately notify and consult with the DA, IPM, FBI, and the USAO regarding any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, evidence of apparent criminal conduct by an officer discovered during a misconduct investigation, any use of force in which an officer discharged his firearm, or where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD. 103. If the case may proceed criminally, or where NOPD requests a criminal prosecution, any compelled interview of the subject officers shall be delayed. No other part of the investigation shall be held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Superintendent in consultation with the agency conducting the criminal investigation. 104. NOPD agrees to make good faith efforts to work with the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office in requesting that that Office provide a completed Coroner's report within 30 days regarding a death proximate to a use of force and with the DA or other investigating agency regarding any criminal declination within 60 days after the use of force. 105. In conducting its investigation, FIT shall:
a) review all Force Statements to ensure that these statements include the information required by this Agreement and NOPD policy; b) respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his or her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider; c) ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use of force, including but not limited to audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected;
30

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 36 of 129
d) ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted. In addition, civilian witnesses should be encouraged to provide and sign a written statement in their own words; e) ensure, consistent with applicable law, that all officers witnessing a serious use of force incident by another officer provide a Force Statement regarding the incident. Officers involved in a use of force incident shall be separated until interviewed. Group interviews shall be prohibited. FIT shall ensure that all FIT investigation reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred. FIT shall not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officers' conduct, when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. FIT shall record all interviews; and f) consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, iffeasible. FIT will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries. NOPD will train all of its FIT members on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility, incorporating credibility instructions provided to jurors. 106. FIT shall complete a preliminary report that shall be presented to the Superintendent or the Superintendent's designee as soon as possible, but in no circumstances later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force. 107. FIT shall complete its administrative use of force investigation within 30 days from the use of force. Any request for an extension to this time limit must be approved by the Deputy Superintendent of PIB through consultation with the Superintendent. At the conclusion of each use of force investigation, FIT shall prepare an investigation report. The report shall include: a) a narrative description of the incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fails to justify the officer's conduct based on FIT's independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident; b) documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report shall specifically state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author of the report from determining the identification, phone
31

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 37 of 129
number, or address of those witnesses, the report shall state the reasons why. The report should also include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement; c) the names of all other NOPD employees witnessing the use of force; d) FIT's evaluation of the basis for the use of force, based on FIT's review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer's actions appear to be within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser force options; e) if a weapon was used, documentation that the officer's certification and training for the weapon are current; and f) documentation of any disciplinary and/or non-disciplinary corrective action recommended. L. Use of Force Review Board 108. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a Use of Force Review Board to review all serious uses of force and other FIT investigations. The UFRB shall be comprised of the Deputy Superintendent of the Public Integrity Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of the Field Operations Bureau, and the Deputy Superintendent ofthe Investigations & Support Bureau. The UFRB shall conduct timely, comprehensive, and reliable reviews. The UFRB shall: a) review each FIT investigation within 30 days of receiving the FIT investigation report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence; b) hear the case presentation from the lead investigator and discuss the case as necessary with the investigator to gain a full understanding of the facts of the incident. The officer(s) who used the force subject to investigation, or who are otherwise the subject(s) of the FIT investigation, shall not be present; c) order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility of the fmdings. Where the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the UFRB shall document the reasons for this determination, which shall be included as an addendum to the original investigation, including the specific evidence or analysis supporting their conclusions;
32

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 38 of 129
d) determine whether the force violated NOPD policy. If the force violated NOPD policy, the UFRB shall refer it to PIB for disciplinary action; e) determine whether the incident raises policy, training, equipment, or tactical concerns, and refer such incidents to the appropriate unit within NOPD to ensure they are resolved; f) direct District supervisors to take and document non-disciplinary corrective action to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance; and g) document its fmdings and recommendations in a UFRB Report within 45 days of receiving the FIT investigation and within 15 days of the UFRB case presentation. M. Use of Force Training 109. NOPD shall provide all NOPD officers with 40 hours of use of force training within 365 days of the Effective Date, and 24 hours of use of force training on at least an armual basis thereafter, including, as necessary, developments in applicable law and NOPD policy. NOPD shall coordinate and review all use of force training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with the Constitution, Louisiana law, this Agreement and NOPD policy. NOPD's use of force training shall include the following topics: a) NOPD's use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision-making; c) use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and related law; e) role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use offorce decision-making, including training on the importance and impact of ethical decision making and peer intervention; f) the proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies, including batons, canines, and ECWs; g) 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; h) threat assessment; i) basic crisis intervention and interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies (the
33

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 39 of 129
Crisis Intervention Training provided to all new and current officers pursuant to this Agreement may be combined with this training); j) factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit; k) appropriate training on conflict management; and I) for supervisors of all ranks, as part of their initial and annual in-service supervisory training, additional training in conducting use of force investigations; strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated against for using only reasonable force or attempting to prevent unreasonable force. 110. Included in the use of force training set out above, NOPD shall deliver firearms training to all officers within 365 days of the Effective Date and at least yearly thereafter. NOPD firearms training shall: a) require officers to complete and satisfactorily pass firearm training and to qualifY for regulation and other service firearms, as necessary, on an annual basis; b) require recruits, officers in probationary periods, and officers who return from unarmed status to complete and satisfactorily pass firearm training and to qualifY for regulation and other service firearms before such personnel are permitted to carry and use firearms; c) incorporate professional night training, stress training (e.g., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion), and proper use of force decision-making training, including continuous threat assessment techniques, in the annual in-service training program; and d) ensure that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times.
IV. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM
NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.
34

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 40 of 129
A. Crisis Intervention Planning Committee 111. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD and the City agree to implement a Crisis Intervention Planning Committee ("Planning Committee") to direct the development and implementation of the CIT. The Planning Committee shall analyze and recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training methods regarding police contact with persons who may be mentally ill with the goal of de-escalating the potential for violent encounters. 112. The Planning Committee shall include representation from NOPD command leadership and City-contracted mental health professionals. NOPD shall also seek representation from the civilian leadership of the MCTU, local municipal government, the New Orleans Metropolitan Human Services District, community mental health professionals, professionals from emergency health care receiving facilities, members of the local judiciary, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office, homeless service agencies, and mental health professionals and advocates. B. Program Development 113. NOPD and the City agree to implement a comprehensive first responder CIT program to develop and maintain specially trained CIT officers. This program shall incorporate the following:
a) Within 270 days of the Effective Date, an operations subcommittee, appointed by and reporting to the Planning Committee, shall develop policies and procedures for the transfer of custody or voluntary referral of individuals between NOPD, receiving facilities, and local mental health and social service agencies. These policies and procedures shall clearly describe the existing roles and responsibilities of the existing MCTU and NOPD patrol officers, and of CIT officers. b) NOPD agrees to continue using the MCTU and to continue staffing it with well-trained and dedicated community volunteers, to assist NOPD patrol units in the management and transportation of persons suffering a mental health crisis or from a diagnosed behavioral disorder. MCTU shall retain its duties and responsibilities in providing transportation for individuals experiencing a mental health or behavioral crisis. c) Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Planning Committee shall select CIT officer volunteers, based upon supervisor recommendations, Pffi records, and interviews. Preference should be given to officers with at least three years of field experience. d) CIT officers shall be assigned to the patrol division and maintain their standard patrol
35

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 41 of 129
duties, except when called to respond to potential behavioral or mental health crisis events outside of their assigned patrol district. e) CIT officers who are dispatched to a crisis event shall have the responsibility for the scene and discretion to determine strategies for resolving the event unless an appropriate supervisor is present and affirmatively assumes the scene responsibility. I) NOPD shall track CIT use through data provided by the CIT officer or MCTU after each response. NOPD shall gather and track the following data at a minimum:
(1) Date, time, and location of the incident; (2) Subject's name, age, gender, and address; (3) Whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon; (4) Whether the subject is a U.S. military veteran; (5) Complainant's name and address; (6) Name and badge number of CIT officer on the scene; (7) Whether a supervisor responded to the scene; (8) Techniques or equipment used; (9) Any injuries to officers, subject, or others; (1 0) Disposition; and (11) Brief narrative of the event (if not included in any other document). g) NOPD shall publicly report this data, aggregated as necessary to protect privacy. C. CIT and First Responder Training 114. NOPD shall require officers selected for the CIT program to undergo a 40-hour initial comprehensive training prior to being assigned CIT duties, and eight hours of in-service training annually thereafter. 115. Within three years, NOPD shall train at least 20% of its patrol division in the CIT program to ensure that NOPD can provide a CIT-trained officer in each shift in each District. 116. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, a curriculum subcommittee of the Planning Committee shall develop a 40-hour curriculum and in-service training for first responders based on the national CIT model. The curriculum subcommittee may adapt MCTU's existing training curriculum for this purpose. CIT training faculty should include volunteer local area professionals and advocates to the greatest extent possible. This crisis intervention training shall
36

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 42 of 129
emphasize mental health-related topics, crisis resolution skills, de-escalation training, and access to community-based services. 117. Training for all newly selected CIT officers shall begin within 365 days of the Effective Date and shall be completed within three years. This training shall include not only lecturebased instruction, but also on-site visitation and exposure to mental health facilities, intensive interaction with individuals with a mental illness, and scenario-based de-escalation skills training. 118. In addition to the more extensive training for CIT officers set out above, NOPD agrees to provide all new recruits at least 16 hours of training on responding to persons in behavioral or mental health crisis, and four hours of in-service training annually thereafter. NOPD and the City further agree to provide all current officers with eight hours oftraining on responding to persons in behavioral or mental crisis within 365 days of the Effective Date, and four hours of inservice training annually thereafter. 119. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to offer the 40-hour crisis intervention training to all new and current dispatchers to enable them to identify calls for service that involve behavioral or mental health crisis events. NOPD agrees to offer to provide this training to new dispatchers within 90 days of their start date. NOPD agrees to offer crisis intervention in annual in-service training for dispatchers. D. Maintenance of CIT Program 120. NOPD agrees to maintain the CIT Planning Committee after the CIT program is operational. The Planning Committee shall serve as a problem-solving forum for interagency issues and shall monitor ongoing outcome indicators collected by each agency. These indicators may include data such as NOPD CIT use, NOPD CIT behavioral event disposition data, Orleans Parish Prison booking data, the number of individuals with a mental health diagnosis at the jail, and the transfer of custody and voluntary referral rates between NOPD, emergency receiving facilities, and community agencies. 121. NOPD agrees to review the outcome data generated through the process described above to: determine whether to recognize individual CIT officer performance that deserves commendation; develop new response strategies for repeat calls for service; identify training needs for the annual CIT in-service; make CIT curriculum changes; and identify other NOPD issues to allow NOPD to provide an appropriate response to a behavioral crisis event.
37

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 43 of 129
V. STOPS, SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS NOPD agrees to ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to ensure that investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy; are consistent with community priorities for enforcement; and are carried out with fairness and respect. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Investigatory Stops and Detentions 122. NOPD officers may only conduct investigatory stops or detentions where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the commission of a crime. 123. NOPD officers shall use accurate and specific descriptive language and not rely solely on "boilerplate" or "pat" language in any reports documenting investigatory stops, detentions, or searches. Articulation of reasonable suspicion and probable cause shall be specific and clear. 124. NOPD officers shall not use or rely on information known to be materially false or incorrect in effectuating an investigatory stop or detention. 125. NOPD officers shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part of an actual and apparently credible description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 126. NOPD officers shall continue to require reasonable suspicion to conduct field interviews, and document investigatory field contacts, including field interviews, in accordance with the stop and search data collection requirements of this Agreement. B. Searches 127. NOPD officers shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in exercising discretion to conduct a warrantless search or to seek a search warrant, except as part of an actual and apparently credible description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 128. An officer shall immediately notify a supervisor when considering a search based on consent, and the supervisor shall approve the search before it is conducted.
38

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 44 of 129
129. Where an officer seeks consent for a search, the officer shall affirmatively inform the subject of his or her right to refuse and to revoke consent at any time, and document the subject's consent on a written form that explains these rights. 130. NOPD officers shall only conduct searches of individuals on probation or parole where legal authority for the search has been established. 131. NOPD agrees to ensure that the consent to search form includes separate signature lines for civilians to affmn that they understand they have a right to refuse, and for officers to certify that they have read and explained the right to refuse to the civilian. 132. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers understand how strip and body cavity searches are different than regular searches and are trained on how to conduct proper field strip searches. NOPD shall ensure that field strip searches of arrestees are performed only in the rarest of circumstances under exigent circumstances where the life of officers or others may be placed at risk, under conditions that provide privacy and with the explicit approval of a supervisory officer. NOPD agrees to ensure that strip searches are only performed when the officer has articulable probable cause that a subject is concealing a weapon or contraband. 133. When approval to conduct a strip search is requested, the supervisor shall immediately respond to the scene to approve the strip search. In situations where strip searches are legally justified, necessary under NOPD policy, and authorized by a supervisor, the search shall be conducted in a professional manner by trained personnel; include the least number ofpersonnel necessary; be performed only by those of the same sex as the identified sex of the individual; and under conditions that provide privacy from all but those authorized to conduct the search. 134. NOPD agrees to ensure that body cavity searches are performed only after obtaining a search warrant and by specially trained medical personnel. 135. An affidavit or sworn declaration supporting an application for a search warrant shall provide an accurate and clear description of the reasons for the request for the search, the place or thing to be searched, and items or possible evidence that are the purpose of the search. 136. A supervisor shall review each request for a search or arrest warrant, including each affidavit or declaration, before it is filed by an officer in support of a warrant application, for appropriateness, legality, and conformance with NOPD policy and this Agreement. The supervisor shall assess the information contained in the warrant application and supporting
39

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 45 of 129
documents for authenticity, including an examination for "boilerplate" or "pat" language, inconsistent information, and lack of articulation of a legal basis for the warrant. 137. As part of the supervisory review, the supervisor shall document in an auditable format those warrant applications that are legally unsupported, are in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies, including recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. The quality and accuracy of search warrants and supportive affidavits or declarations shall be taken into account in officer performance evaluations. 138. A supervisor shall assist in developing an operational plan for the execution of a search warrant, be present for execution of the search warrant, and review and document the search in an after-action report within 24 hours of the execution of the warrant. 139. NOPD officers shall not detain non-occupants present at the location where a search warrant is executed for longer than reasonably necessary to secure the area, or to determine whether they are occupants of the premises being searched, or where the officer has individualized reasonable suspicion that the non-occupant is involved in criminal activity or poses a danger to officer safety. 140. NOPD shall maintain, centrally and in each NOPD District and specialized unit, a log listing each search warrant, the case file where a copy of such warrant is maintained, the officer who applied for the search warrant, and each supervisor who reviewed the application for a search warrant. C. Arrests 141. An NOPD officer shall only arrest an individual where the officer has probable cause. 142. In effectuating an arrest, NOPD officers shall not rely on information known to be materially false or incorrect. Officers may not consider race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in effecting an arrest, except as part of an actual and apparently credible description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 143. An officer shall immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a felony arrest; an arrest where the officer used force; an arrest for obstructing or resisting an officer; a custodial
40

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 46 of 129
arrest where the most serious violation was a vehicle infraction, simple drug possession, or, outside the French Quarter and Central Business District, any of the following city or state laws: Disturbing the Peace (City Code 54-103; LSA-R.S. 14:103); Criminal Trespass (City Code 54-153; LSA-R.S. 14:63); Obstructing Public Passages (City Code 54-40; LSA-R.S. 14:100.1); or Begging/Vagrancy (City Code 54-411; 14:107). Upon notification, the supervisor shall respond to the scene. 144. The responding supervisor shall approve or disapprove the officer's arrest recommendation based on the existence of probable cause and NOPD policy. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies in the officer's arrest recommendation, including releasing the subject, recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. 145. NOPD patrol officers shall complete all arrest reports before the end of shift. NOPD field supervisors shall review each arrest report of officers under their command and shall memorialize their review in writing within 12 hours of receiving the report, absent exceptional circumstances. Supervisors shall review reports and forms for "boilerplate" or "pat" language, inconsistent information, lack of probable cause, or other indications that the information in the reports or forms is not authentic or correct. 146. As part of the supervisory review, the supervisor shall document in an auditable format those arrests that are unsupported by probable cause, are in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies in making arrests, including recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. For each subordinate, the supervisor shall track each violation or deficiency and the corrective action taken, to identify officers needing repeated corrective action. The supervisor shall ensure that each violation or deficiency is noted in the officer's performance evaluations. The quality of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the supervisor's own performance evaluations. NOPD shall take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action against supervisors who fail to conduct reviews of adequate and consistent quality.
41

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 47 of 129
147. A command-level official shall review, in writing, all supervisory reviews related to arrests that are unsupported by probable cause, are in violation ofNOPD policy, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The commander's review shall be completed within seven days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander shall evaluate the corrective action and recommendations in the supervisor's written report and ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken, including referring the incident to PIB for investigation, if appropriate. 148. NOPD shall track centrally and at the District level the DA's acceptance and refusal rates of arrests made by NOPD and reasons for refusals, when made available by the DA, including those factors and information indicating that a failure to prosecute was due to the quality of officer arrests or concerns regarding officer conduct. Each District Commander shall be held accountable for referring to PIB for investigation any information regarding specific incidents of possible officer misconduct related to officer arrests noted in the DA's refusal reasons. D. Stop and Search Data Collection and Review 149. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop a written or electronic report format to collect data on all investigatory stops and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a citation. This system shall allow for summarization and searches and also shall be integrated into the EWS. NOPD's stop and search data collection system shall be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ, and shall require officers to document the following:
a) officer's name and badge number; b) date and time of the stop; c) location of the stop; d) duration of the stop; e) subject's apparent race, ethnicity, gender, and apparent age; f) if a vehicle stop, presence and number of any passengers and the apparent race, ethnicity, gender, and age of each passenger; if a non-vehicle stop (e.g., pedestrian or bicycle), number of individuals stopped and race, ethnicity, gender, and age of each person; g) reason for the stop, including a description of the facts creating reasonable suspicion; h) if a vehicle stop, whether the driver or any passenger was required to exit the vehicle, and reason;
42

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 48 of 129
i) whether any individual was asked to consent to a search and whether such consent was g1ven; j) whether a probable cause search was performed on any individual, including a brief description ofthe facts creating probable cause; k) whether a pat-and-frisk or other search was performed on any individual, including a description of the facts justifying the pat-and-frisk or other search; I) whether any contraband or evidence was seized from any individual, and nature of the contraband or evidence; and m) disposition of the stop, including whether a citation or summons was issued to, or an arrest was made of, any individual. 150. Officers shall document investigatory stops and detentions, and any searches resulting from or proximate to the stop or detention. In all instances where property or evidence is seized, the officer shall immediately complete a police incident report documenting a complete and accurate inventory of the property or evidence seized, and submit the property or evidence seized to Central Property and Evidence before the end of shift. All documentation of stops, detentions, searches, and seizures shall be submitted to the officer's supervisor by the end of shift. Absent exceptional circumstances, field supervisors shall review investigatory stops and detention or search reports by field officers within 12 hours of receiving this report. Supervisors shall report and shall document: (1) those investigatory stops and detentions that appear unsupported by reasonable suspicion; (2) those searches that appear to be without legal justification; (3) stops or searches in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or (4) stops or searches that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. 151. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address all violations or deficiencies in investigatory stops, detentions, or executions of searches, including recommending nondisciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. For each subordinate, the supervisor shall track each violation or deficiency and the corrective action taken, if any, in order to identify officers needing repeated corrective action. The supervisor shall ensure that each violation or deficiency is noted in the officer's performance evaluations. The quality and completeness of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the supervisor's own performance evaluations. NOPD shall take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action against supervisors who fail to
43

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 49 of 129
conduct complete, thorough, and accurate reviews of officers' investigatory detentions and searches. 152. NOPD shall develop a protocol for comprehensive analysis, on at least an annual basis, of the stop and search data collected. This protocol shall be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ, and shall identify and incorporate appropriate benchmarks for comparison. 153. On at least an annual basis, NOPD shall issue a report summarizing the stop and search data collected, the analysis of that data, and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. The report shall be publicly available. 154. NOPD shall ensure that all databases containing individual-specific data comply fully with federal and state privacy standards governing personally identifying information. NOPD shall develop a process to restrict database access to authorized, identified users who are accessing the information for a specific and identified purpose. E. First Amendment Right to Observe and Record Officer Conduct 155. NOPD shall ensure that, in accordance with their rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, onlookers or bystanders may witness, observe, record, and/or comment on officer conduct, including stops, detentions, searches, arrests, or uses of force. Officers shall respect the right of civilians to observe, record, and/or verbally comment on or complain about the performance of police duties occurring in public, and NOPD shall ensure that officers understand that exercising this right serves important public purposes. 156. Individuals observing stops, detentions, arrests, and other incidents shall be permitted to remain in the proximity of the incident unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met. 157. Individuals shall be permitted to record police officer enforcement activities by camera, video recorder, cell phone recorder, or other means, unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met. 158. Officers shall not threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from remaining in the proximity of or recording police officer enforcement activities. 159. Officers shall not detain, prolong the detention of, or arrest an individual for remaining in the proximity of, recording, or verbally commenting on officer conduct directed at the individual or a third party, unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met. 160. Officers shall take appropriate law enforcement action against a bystander only if a bystander's presence would jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, others in the vicinity
44

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 50 of 129
or crime scene integrity; the bystander violates the law; or the bystander incites others to violate the law. 161. Officers shall not seize or otherwise coerce production of recorded sounds or images without obtaining a warrant, or order an individual to destroy such recordings. Where an officer has a reasonable belief that a bystander or witness has captured a recording of critical evidence related to a felony, the officer may secure such evidence for no longer than required to obtain a legal subpoena, search warrant, or other valid order. F. Stop, Search, and Arrest Training 162. NOPD shall provide all officers with at least 24 hours within 365 days of the Effective Date, and at least four hours on at least an annual basis thereafter, of training on stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements of this Agreement. Such training shall be taught by a qualified legal instructor with significant experience in Fourth Amendment issues, and shall:
a) address Fourth Amendment and related law, NOPD policies, and requirements in this Agreement regarding searches and seizures; b) address First Amendment and related law, NOPD policies, and requirements in this Agreement on the rights of individuals to verbally dispute, observe, and record officer conduct; and c) address the difference between various police contacts by the scope and level of police intrusion; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and mere speculation; and between voluntary consent and mere acquiescence to police authority; d) provide guidance on the facts and circumstances that should be considered in initiating, conducting, terminating, and expanding an investigatory stop or detention; e) provide guidance on the level of permissible intrusion when conducting searches, such as "pat-downs" or "frisks"; t) provide guidance on the legal requirements for conducting searches, with and without a warrant; g) provide guidance on the permissible nature and scope of searches based on the level of intrusion on an individual's privacy interests, including searches conducted pursuant to probation or parole release provisions; h) specify the procedures for executing searches, including handling, recording, and taking custody of seized property or evidence;
45

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 51 of 129
i) provide guidance on effecting an arrest with and without an arrest warrant; and j) provide guidance regarding the nature and scope of searches incident to an arrest.
VI. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects' rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Interrogation Restrictions and Equipment 163. Officers shall not use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual's family during custodial interrogations. 164. All custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded. All recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety. NOPD rejects the concept ofa "preinterview" and prohibits any decision not to record any portion of the interrogation based on such categorization. The recording equipment shall not be turned off unless the suspect states that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded. If the suspect requests that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded, the interviewer will record the subject making this request and shall document this request in the case report. 165. If the interrogation is not able to be video and audio recorded because of equipment failure or malfunction, detectives shall record the interrogation by means of a digital or cassette recorder. Any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau. 166. All officers shall maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations. 167. Within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.
46

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 52 of 129
168. Within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall use qualified interpreters for any interrogation of an LEP individual, and Miranda warnings shall be provided to the subject in his or her primary language. Because of the dual role bilingual NOPD employees may have when conducting an interrogation and simultaneously acting as an interpreter, they should only be used as an interpreter during an interrogation if they have identified themselves as officers or employees of the Department, are authorized as NOPD interpreters, and are trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices, as required by this Agreement and NOPD's language assistance policy and plan. B. Detective Selection and Interrogation Training 169. NOPD shall post all detective openings throughout the Department and shall revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview. 170. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and deliver at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. This training shall include legal standards, ethics, the mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions. NOPD shall provide regular, and at least annual, in-service training to all detectives on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions.
VII. PHOTOGRAPillC LINE-UPS NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. 171. No officer who is involved in the investigation shall participate in administering the photographic lineup. The individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. 172. NOPD agrees that, before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. 173. NOPD agrees to select "filler" photographs-those that do not depict the suspect-of individuals who generally fit the witness's description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description ofthe perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of
47

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 53 of 129
the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 174. NOPD agrees to keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up. 175. NOPD agrees to document other information pertinent to the display procedure, including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure. 176. If a suspect selection is made, NOPD agrees to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used. It shall be kept as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part of the permanent case file.
VIII. BIAS-FREE POLICING NOPD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Bias-Free Policing Training 177. NOPD agrees to provide all officers with four hours of comprehensive training on bias-free policing within 365 days of the Effective Date, and four hours annually thereafter, based on developments in Louisiana or federal law and NOPD policy. Such training shall emphasize that discriminatory policing in the form of either selective enforcement or nonenforcement of the law, including the selection or rejection of particular tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias, is prohibited by policy and will subject officers to discipline. This training shall address: a) methods and strategies for more effective policing that rely upon non-discriminatory factors; b) police and community perspectives related to discriminatory policing;
48

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 54 of 129
c) Constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement; d) the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as essential to effective policing; e) the existence and impact of arbitrary classifications, stereotyping, and implicit bias; f) instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; g) identification of key decision points where prohibited discrimination can take effect at both the incident and strategic-planning levels; and h) methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination, including problem-oriented policing strategies. B. Ensuring Bias-Free Policing 178. NOPD agrees to apply and administer programs, initiatives, and activities without discrimination on the basis ofrace, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 179. NOPD agrees to provide clear guidance on prohibited conduct, including selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law and the selection or rejection of particular tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias. 180. NOPD leadership and supervising officers shall consistently reinforce to subordinates that discriminatory policing is an unacceptable tactic, including in making decisions to use particular police tactics in particular communities based upon stereotypes or bias. 181. NOPD agrees to incorporate the following elements in its training of officers: 1) introducing themselves at the initiation of contact with a civilian; 2) stating the reason for a investigatory stop or detention as soon as practicable; 3) ensuring that an investigatory stop or detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action; and 4) acting with professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction regardless of any provocation. 182. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to incorporate requirements regarding bias-free policing and equal protection into its hiring, promotion, and performance assessment processes, including giving significant weight to an individual's history of sustained bias-related violations, as well as using interviews and other methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively practice bias-free policing.
49

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 55 of 129
183. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a plan to provide all individuals within the City essential police services regardless of immigration status, in order to build and preserve trust among community members, and to more effectively prevent and solve crime. As part of this plan:
a) Officers shall not take law enforcement action on the basis of actual or perceived immigration status, including the initiation of stops or other field contacts; b) Officers shall not question victims of, or witnesses to, crime regarding their immigration status. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit NOPD from assisting nonimmigrant victims/witnesses in obtaining U-Visa I T-Visas, where appropriate; c) Officers shall not enforce La. R.S.l4:100.13, which the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, has found to unlawfully pre-empt federal regulations; and d) NOPD shall seek the assistance of community advocates in widely disseminating to the public, in English and in Spanish, NOPD's written policy incorporating these requirements. 184. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a specific policy to guide officers' interactions with members ofthe LGBT community, which shall prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. 185. NOPD agrees that officers will treat LGBT individuals with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and that officers are specifically prohibited from using harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language regarding or toward LGBT individuals. This shall include addressing transgender individuals with their chosen name, title, and pronoun. 186. NOPD agrees that officers shall not construe sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression as reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an individual is or has engaged in any crime, and that officers shall not request identification from or otherwise initiate a contact solely on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. 187. NOPD agrees that officers will not subject transgender individuals to more invasive or more frequent frisk procedures due to transgender status. Officers shall not frisk any person for the purpose of determining that person's gender or to view or touch the person's genitals. Where same-gender searches are required by law or NOPD policy, the officer shall respect the gender identification expressed by the individual. Where the individual does not self-identify and the gender identity is not clear to a reasonable person or the officer is uncertain, the officer will take
50

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 56 of 129
reasonable, non-invasive steps to determine the gender identity, such as asking the individual how the individual would like to be addressed. 188. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and at least annually thereafter, NOPD agrees to assess all NOPD programs, initiatives, and activities to ensure that no program, initiative, or activity is applied or administered in a manner that discriminates against individuals on the basis ofrace, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. As part of its assessment, NOPD agrees to specifically include an assessment of misconduct complaints involving discrimination, use of force, motor vehicle and pedestrian stops, and arrests, including the selection or rejection of particular geographic deployment tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias. NOPD shall base its assessment of programs, initiatives, and activities on accurate, complete, and reliable data, including data contained in the EWS, stop and detention data, use of force analyses, crime trend analysis in relation to population demographics, enforcement practices based on community concerns, operations plans, and after-action reports. NOPD agrees to make this assessment publicly available. C. Language Assistance 189. NOPD agrees to effectively communicate with and provide timely and meaningful access
to police services to all members of the community, regardless of their national origin or limited
ability to speak, read, write, or understand English. To achieve this outcome, NOPD shall: a) develop and implement a language assistance plan and policy that complies, at a minimum, with Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and other applicable law, and that comports with best practices and current professional standards; b) ensure that all NOPD personnel take reasonable steps to provide timely, meaningful language assistance services to LEP individuals they encounter and whenever an LEP individual requests language assistance services; c) identify and assess demographic data, specifically the number ofLEP individuals within its jurisdiction and the number of LEP victims and witnesses who seek NOPD services; d) use collected demographic and service data to identify and meet hiring needs for bilingual staff; e) regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of bilingual staffto become an NOPD Authorized Interpreter;
51

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 57 of 129
f) create and maintain an NOPDAI List and provide that list to the Orleans Parish Communication District 911 Communications Center; g) ensure that Orleans Parish Communications District 911 call takers are trained to recognize the need for a NOPDAI to respond to an incident involving an LEP individual and dispatch a NOPDAI as appropriate. If no NOPDAI is available, the personnel shall contact a telephonic interpretation service provider. The call taker shall note in information to the radio dispatch that the 911 caller is an LEP individual and indicate the language; h) develop protocols for interpretation for interrogations and interviews ofLEP individuals to ensure a qualified interpreter is used for the taking of any formal statement from a suspect or witness in order to protect their legal rights; i) develop and implement a process for taking, responding to, and tracking citizen complaints and resolutions of complaints filed by LEP individuals; j) identify official and vital documents that are subject to public dissemination, and require translation of such documents into Spanish and Vietnamese, at a minimum. Such vital documents include: consent to search forms; witness and victim statement forms; citation forms; victim rights notification forms; citizen complaint forms; and notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance in connection with NOPD activities; k) implement a process for recruiting qualified bilingual personnel to meet demonstrated service needs. As part of this process, NOPD agrees to establish meaningful relationships with local and state-wide institutions and community organizations that can serve as the source of qualified bilingual applicants and facilitate outreach to such advocates; and I) implement incentives for bilingual employees to become NOPDAis, such as pay differentials, consideration in performance evaluations, or assignments. 190. NOPD agrees to translate the language assistance plan and policy into Spanish and Vietnamese, and if it becomes appropriate, other languages, and post the English and translated versions in a public area ofthe police department building, District police stations, and the PIB building, as well as online, and in any other locations throughout the City where individuals go to seek police assistance. NOPD agrees to distribute the language assistance plan and policy to a variety ofcommunity organizations serving LEP communities encountered by NOPD.
52

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 58 of 129
191. NOPD agrees to distribute its language assistance plan and policy to all staff and police personnel, and, within 365 days of the Effective Date, provide training to all personnel on providing language assistance services to LEP individuals. This training shall include:
a) NOPD's LEP plan and policies; and the requirements of Title VI and this Agreement; b) how to access NOPD-authorized telephonic and in-person interpreters; c) how to work with interpreters in the field; d) cultural diversity; and e) how to communicate with LEP individuals in commonly encountered scenarios; and basic command of Spanish or Vietnamese, for officers assigned to Districts with significant LEP populations. 192. Within 180 days of Effective Date, NOPD agrees to designate a language access coordinator who shall coordinate and monitor compliance with its language assistance plan. The language access coordinator shall assess the effectiveness and efficiency ofthe plan on an ongoing basis and shall report to the Superintendent or his designee regarding needed improvements and any accountability concerns. The Superintendent or his designee shall
consider the information provided by the coordinator and respond as necessary to ensure that
NOPD's language assistance plan is effective. 193. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a process of consultation with representatives of the LEP community to develop and at least annually review: implementation of the language assistance plan, including areas of possible collaboration to ensure its effectiveness; identification of additional languages that would be appropriate for translation of materials; accuracy and quality ofNOPD language assistance services; and concerns, ideas, and strategies for ensuring language access. 194. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop a process for determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs, services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP individuals. As part of this process NOPD shall:
a) document the number ofLEP persons requiring NOPD services and their primary language; b) collect data regarding the number of times an interpreter has been used, listed by language and type of interpreter (telephonic or in-person); c) document the number of bilingual staff who have been evaluated for language proficiency,
53

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 59 of 129
by language, job title, and level of proficiency; and d) document use of translators, vital documents translated, and languages into which vital documents are translated.
IX. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a marmer free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the NOFJC, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Sexual Assault 195. NOPD agrees to develop and implement clear policies and procedures governing its response to reports of sexual assault. NOPD agrees to ensure its policies and procedures on sexual assault comply with applicable law and comport with best practices and current professional standards. NOPD agrees to clearly delineate in policy the respective duties of patrol officers/first responders, sex crimes detectives, and supervisors, and to provide clear and detailed guidelines for steps at each stage ofNOPD's response to a reported sexual assault, including dispatch response, initial officer response, and on-scene and follow-up investigation. 196. Patrol officers or other first responders shall document their observations and any actions taken, including any statements of victims, witnesses, and reporting persons, in calls for service related to sexual assaults. 197. NOPD protocols for conducting initial and follow-up victim interviews shall reflect the special needs of victims who may be in crisis or suffering from trauma. 198. NOPD agrees to provide clear and detailed guidelines for on-scene and follow-up investigation, including identifying, locating, and interviewing witnesses and suspects; collaborating with victim advocates; collecting evidence; special procedures for drug-facilitated sexual assaults; and documentation. 199. NOPD agrees to establish protocols for forensic examinations of both victims and suspects, as well as evidence preservation and crime scene management in the sexual assault context. These protocols shall be established in collaboration with the New Orleans SART and
54

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 60 of 129
shall incorporate the recommendations of the National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination recommended protocols governing police procedure. 200. Through its on-going training, NOPD agrees to keep officers apprised, and shall inform victims, of available services, referrals, or other assistance. 201. Special Victims Section supervisors shall provide direct supervision of their subordinates by:
a) responding to assist officers investigating felony sexual assaults as defined under the Louisiana Criminal Code of Procedure: RS 14:42, Aggravated Rape; RS 14:42.1, Forcible Rape; RS 14:43, Simple Rape; RS 14:43.1, Sexual Battery; RS 14:43.2, Second Degree Sexual Battery; and RS 14:43.3, Oral Sexual Battery. b) building relationships and enhancing cooperation with victim advocates and forensic examination programs, both to respond to and reduce the risk of sexual assault; c) continually seeking and creating opportunities for training to enhance investigators' skills; d) closely reviewing investigative reports and dispositions; e) demonstrating a detailed understanding of victim issues and setting clear expectations of detectives regarding their treatment of victims; f) incorporating victim interactions and services into subordinates' performance evaluations; and g) following up all investigative leads generated from CODIS hits developed as a result of testing of the evidence in the case. 202. NOPD agrees to track all CODIS hit outcomes with the CODIS Hit Outcome Program software provided by National Institute of Justice. This software will provide accountability and outcome data for review by appropriate bodies, and provide feedback to the DNA Database Unit maintained by the Louisiana State Police. 203. NOPD agrees to incorporate IACP recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices into its training, and update procedural requirements annually, to reflect changes in policy and law and developments in research and best practice. 204. In addition to annual in-service training, NOPD agrees to provide initial training for sex crimes detectives of no fewer than 32 hours. This training shall include: a) realistic dynamics of sexual assault, including issues related to response to trauma and delayed reporting;
55

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 61 of 129
b) overcoming the perception of false/unfounded allegations to successfully investigate nonstranger sexual assault; c) drug and alcohol facilitated sexual assault; d) skills-based training on interviewing, including taped mock victim interviews; e) report-writing; f) discovery; and g) collection, preservation, and submission of evidence in sexual assault cases, including selecting the evidence to be submitted for testing. 205. NOPD agrees to provide detailed initial and recruit training on responding to sexual assault for patrol officers and other first responders of no fewer than four hours, and ongoing annual in-service training. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate fact-based scenarios involving stranger and non-stranger sexual assault into recruit and in-service training on topics such as general investigation, crime scene preservation, and report writing. NOPD's training on sexual assault shall include: a) realistic dynamics of sexual assault, including issues related to response to trauma and delayed reporting; b) report writing; c) victim interviewing; and d) initial assessment of victim and crime scene. 206. During the first year of this Agreement, neither patrol officers nor detectives shall code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category without the express written approval of the ISB Special Victim Section Commander and the ISB Criminal Investigations Division Commander. Following this period, patrol officers shall not code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category. Any decision by a detective to do so shall receive close secondary review and shall be approved in writing by an immediate Sex Crimes unit supervisor and the Division commander. 207. NOPD agrees to train supervisors and investigators in the Sex Crimes unit in the proper definitions and application of"unfounded," "false," and "baseless" classifications in the context of sexual assault. The immediate supervisor in the Sex Crimes Unit and the Special Victims Section Commander shall closely review and approve in writing any decision to classify a report
56

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 62 of 129
as ''unfounded." NOPD agrees to track each of these conclusions separately in NOPD's CCMS and publicly report them on at least a semi-annual basis. 208. NOPD agrees to separately track all reports offelony sexual assault, including drugfacilitated sexual assault, sexual assaults involving persons with disabilities rendering them unable to consent, sodomy, and male victims of sexual assault. NOPD agrees to collect data on the final disposition of sexual assault investigations, including whether an arrest was made and whether the DA charged the suspect or rejected the case and, if so, the reason for the rejection if the DA provides a reason. NOPD agrees to track this data in NOPD's CCMS. NOPD further agrees to make a reasonable effort to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the DA to track information related to the outcomes of domestic violence cases including whether the case was ultimately dismissed, resulted in a plea agreement, or tried, and the final outcome ofthe trial. 209. NOPD agrees to track in its Justice Trax Laboratory Information Management System the
evidence collected and whether it was submitted to a crime lab for testing. Where evidence is
not submitted, NOPD agrees to record in this System the justification for this decision. 210. NOPD agrees to work with the DA, community service providers, and other stakeholders to develop and implement a SART and collaborative SART agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date, to provide a coordinated and victim-centered approach to sexual violence. NOPD agrees to comply with its obligations under the SART collaborative agreement. 211. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop a mechanism to select and permit a committee of representatives from the community, including rape crisis advocates, service providers, and/or legal providers, to review, on a semi-annual basis: (I) sexual assault investigations disposed of as "unfounded;" (2) a random sample of open sexual assault investigations with the approval of the DA; and (3) after the first year of this Agreement, reported sexual assaults placed in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category. NOPD agrees to develop a protocol to ensure that feedback and recommendations from this committee are incorporated into policies, general training, remedial training for specific officers or detectives, and the decision to re-examine and re-open investigations, if warranted. This mechanism shall include appropriate safeguards to protect ongoing criminal or administrative investigations, confidential or privileged information, or personal information that is protected from disclosure by applicable laws.
57

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 63 of 129
B. Domestic Violence 212. NOPD agrees to delineate the respective duties of communications staff, patrol officers/first responders, District-level detectives, domestic violence detectives, and supervisors in its domestic violence policies and procedures and agrees to provide clear and detailed guidelines for steps at each stage ofNOPD's response to a report of domestic violence, including dispatch response; initial officer response, including entry procedures; and on-scene and follow-up investigation. 213. NOPD agrees to prioritize victim safety and protection at each stage of its response to a report of domestic violence and provide, through the New Orleans Integrated Domestic Violence Protocol, clear guidelines for on-scene and follow-up investigation, including identifying, locating, and interviewing suspects and witnesses, including child witnesses; assessment of the crime scene; evidence collection, including documentation of victim injuries; and seizure of weapons. 214. NOPD agrees to discourage dual arrests of offenders and victims. NOPD agrees to provide guidance on when dual arrests are permissible and require supervisory approval to effectuate a dual arrest. NOPD policies shall require the custodial arrest of domestic violence offenders who violate the terms of a valid and outstanding protection order, and those the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a domestic violence offense. NOPD training shall include training on how to identify the primary aggressor. 215. NOPD agrees to continue to participate in the operation, development, and sustainability of the NOFJC; work in co-location with other civil and criminal agencies and community-based organizations; and support a centralized, multi-agency Family Justice Center model in the handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases in New Orleans. 216. NOPD agrees to collaborate with and refer all victims to the NOFJC. 217. NOPD agrees to continue close collaboration with the DA and community providers to ensure that policies and protocols remain victim-centered and effective. To facilitate this collaboration, the Superintendent or a designee at the level of Commander or above shall meet with the Executive Committee of the NOFJC on at least a quarterly basis to discuss and coordinate policy, training, and other aspects ofNOPD's response to domestic violence. NOPD agrees also to designate, and include at this quarterly meeting, an NOPD employee at the rank of sergeant of above responsible for reviewing and coordinating NOPD's policies on domestic
58

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 64 of 129
violence. This designated officer shall review NOPD's domestic violence policies for internal consistency, and consistence with the Integrated Protocol developed by the NOFJC, the Blueprint for Safety, and any similar plan adopted by the City. He or she shall closely collaborate with NOFJC and the DA to strengthen the Integrated Protocol and/or the Blueprint for Safety to ensure that they comport with best practices, NOPD policies, and this Agreement, and to review and update policies at least annually, or as necessary. He or she also shall be responsible for identifying training needs with respect to implementing NOPD domestic violence policies, the Integrated Protocol, and/or the Blueprint for Safety. 218. NOPD agrees to assign sufficient staff to the DVU at the NOFJC to permit detectives to review, on a weekly basis, District-level reports on incidents of domestic violence, for the purpose of identifying training needs and tracking the Districts' response to domestic violence. The DVU shall have sufficient staff to conduct appropriate follow-up investigation on felony offenses, including incidents where a weapon was involved or the victim suffered serious bodily injury. This follow-up investigation shall include field work and coordination with the DA's Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit. NOPD shall assign sufficient detectives to the DVU based on the calls for service. 219. NOPD agrees to offer training on domestic violence that incorporates IACP recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices and to annually update the training to reflect changes in policy, law, and developments in research and best practice. 220. NOPD agrees to provide at least 4 hours of initial and recruit training on domestic violence for all officers, and ongoing annual in-service training. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate fact-based scenarios involving domestic violence into recruit and in-service training on such topics as general investigation, crime scene preservation, and report writing. NOPD's training on domestic violence shall include:
a) NOPD's policies and procedures on domestic violence, including the Integrated Protocol and/or Blueprint for Safety; b) dynamics of domestic violence; c) identifying the primary aggressor; d) responding to and investigating strangulation in the context of domestic violence; e) interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects;
59

------------------
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 65 of 129
f) report-writing; and g) discovery. 221. NOPD agrees to provide domestic violence detectives with initial training of no fewer than 32 hours, and ongoing annual in-service training. This training shall include advanced, skills-based instruction in evidence collection; victim assistance; interviewing, including taped mock victim interviews; and other topics. 222. NOPD agrees to track dispositions of domestic violence investigations, including arrests and acceptance or refusal by the DA. NOPD further agrees to make a reasonable effort to enter into Memoranda of Understanding with appropriate agencies to track information related to the outcomes of domestic violence cases, including whether the case was ultimately dismissed, resulted in a plea agreement, or tried, and the final verdict or outcome of the trial. NOPD agrees to track dual arrests and domestic violence arrests by gender. NOPD agrees to publicly report this data on at least an annual basis
X. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NOPD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, and to engage constructively with the community, to ensure collaborative problem-solving and ethical and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Community and Problem Oriented Policing 223. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to reassess its staffing allocation and personnel deployment, including its use of specialized units and deployment by geographic area, to ensure that core operations support community policing and problem-solving initiatives, and shall agree to modify any deployment strategy found to be incompatible with effective and community-oriented policing. 224. NOPD agrees to deploy an adequate number and distribution of officers to ensure that all neighborhoods have a regularly assigned officer who is familiar with the geographic area, its issues, problems, and community leaders; engages in problem identification and solving activities with the community members around the community's priorities; works proactively with other city departments to address quality of life issues; and is not assigned to answer calls to service absent exigent circumstances.
60

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 66 of 129
225. NOPD agrees to ensure its mission statement reflects its commitment to community-oriented policing and agrees to integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems. 226. Within 365 days of the Effective Date and annually thereafter, NOPD agrees to provide 8 hours of structured annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all officers, including supervisors, managers and executives. This training shall include:
a) methods and strategies to improve public safety and crime prevention through community engagement; b) scenario-based training that promotes the development of new partnerships between the police and community, targeting problem solving and prevention; c) leadership, ethics, and interpersonal skills; d) community engagement, including how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations, including youth, immigrant, and LGBT communities; e) problem-oriented policing tactics, including a review of the principles behind the problem solving framework developed under the "SARA Model" (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment), which promotes a collaborative, systematic process to address issues of the community, including safety and quality of life; f) conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and g) cultural awareness and sensitivity training. Cultural awareness training shall be designed and delivered in cooperation with City Human Relations Commission staff and community representatives selected by the Commission. 227. NOPD agrees to continue to support community groups in each District (e.g., NONPACC) and to meet regularly with the communities each District serves. In addition, within 240 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement mechanisms to measure officer outreach to a broad cross-section of community members, with an emphasis on youth outreach, to establish extensive problem-solving partnerships and develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and trusting relationships with this broader cross-section of stakeholders. NOPD agrees to develop and implement partnerships to provide immediate and ongoing support to families of victims of homicides and other serious crimes.
61

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 67 of 129
228. Within 240 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop measurements to assess the effectiveness of its community partnerships and problem-solving strategies, including the effectiveness of the Community Coordinating Sergeant program. NOPD agrees to prepare a publicly available report on at least a quarterly basis detailing its community policing efforts in each District, including developing community partnerships, participating in public meetings; and its problem-solving activities, including specific problems addressed and steps taken by NOPD and the community toward their resolution. This report also shall identify obstacles faced and recommendations for future improvement. At least annually, NOPD agrees to issue a publicly available report that summarizes these problem-solving and community policing activities. 229. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to remake the COMSTAT meeting. The COMSTAT meeting will use the underlying collection and reporting of accurate and meaningful data regarding crime trends and other public safety measures to drive discussion of community-policing successes and challenges. NOPD agrees to ensure the COMSTAT meeting includes discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them. NOPD agrees to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific deployment analysis to enable COMSTAT to better support and measure community and problem-solving policing efforts. B. Biennial Community Survey 230. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions ofNOPD and of public safety. 231. To conduct the biennial community survey, the Monitor shall retain an individual or entity, to be approved by DOJ, that shall:
a) develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters; b) design, conduct, and analyze baseline and subsequent biennial surveys of a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees; c) review and consider prior law enforcement surveys in New Orleans and other cities, as well as current or recent concerns in New Orleans, in designing the survey;
62

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 68 of 129
d) engage in informal conversations with New Orleans residents, NOPD officers and command staff, and DOJ representatives, and observe community meetings; e) ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys are designed to capture a representative sample of New Orleans residents, including members of each demographic category; f) conduct the survey in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, as necessary, to ensure representation of the entire New Orleans community; and g) formally discuss the survey methodology with NOPD supervisors and DOJ and consider these opinions in the development of the initial survey and in making improvements to subsequent surveys. 232. NOPD and the City agree to cooperate with the design and conduct of the survey by, for example, helping to organize focus groups of officers and obtaining and providing previous survey instruments and data. 233. The report of the baseline survey and subsequent biennial surveys shall be publically distributed and available.
XI. RECRUITMENT NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, agree to ensure that NOPD's recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below. A. Comprehensive Recruitment Program 234. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD, working with Civil Service, agrees to develop a written, strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants. The strategic recruitment plan shall clearly identify the duties and goals ofNOPD's Recruitment Unit. The recruitment plan shall include specific strategies for attracting applicants with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese (because these languages are spoken by a significant segment of the New Orleans Community), and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.
63

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 69 of 129
235. The Recruitment Unit staff shall be publicly identified, shall work with Civil Service, and shall interact directly with candidates applying for NOPD positions. NOPD agrees to develop a protocol that includes specific criteria for assigning officers to the Recruitment Unit, including officers' work history, disciplinary history, length of employment at NOPD, and demonstrated commitment to community-oriented policing. 236. NOPD agrees to staff the Recruitment Unit sufficiently to permit the Unit to fulfill its responsibilities as set out in this Agreement, NOPD policy, and applicable law. 237. NOPD agrees to train all current and new staff assigned to the Recruitment Unit on recruiting a qualified and diverse workforce, including training on employment law. NOPD agrees to establish specific performance criteria to evaluate recruitment staff effectiveness in hiring increasing numbers of high quality recruits. 238. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a system for psychological screening and assessment of all NOPD recruit candidates, and to set criteria to ensure that only individuals suitable for policing are accepted into NOPD training academy. 239. The Recruitment Unit shall conduct affirmative outreach to a broad group of community members (e.g., college and university initiatives, military outreach, the PCAB, and community meetings in each District), and shall create and foster relationships with those organizations to enhance recruitment efforts. 240. NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to ensure that the dates and times of the officer recruit application period and testing dates are advertised widely. 241. Within 180 Days ofEffective Date, NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to establish standardized qualifications and guidance for who may serve on a recruit applicant interview panel. Eligibility for serving on a recruit applicant interview panel shall include a review of the officer's internal disciplinary file and personnel file. 242. NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to ensure that interview panelists and all officials who interview potential NOPD recruits receive specialized training in the goals ofNOPD recruitment and hiring, including emphasis on integrity, community policing, and nondiscriminatory policing. 243. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD and the City agree to work with Civil Service to establish a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists. The scoring
64

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 70 of 129
system shall be used to assess recruit applicants immediately following the applicant's interview. These assessment forms shall be maintained by the Recruitment Unit. 244. The Recruitment Unit will annually report its recruiting activities and outcomes, including the number of applicants, interviewees, and selectees, and the extent to which the Recruitment Unit has been able to recruit applicants with needed skills, such as problem-solving abilities or fluency in Spanish or Vietnamese, and a discussion of any challenges to recruiting highly qualified applicants.
XII. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Training Coordination and Planning 245. The Training Division shall be the central coordination point for all training, including: recruit training academy; field training; and all in-service training, including firearms and other use of force training; roll-call training; supervisory training; tactical and task force training; and all elective training. 246. NOPD's Training Division Commander shall be responsible for overseeing all NOPD training, including recruit academy; field training; all in-service training, and for ensuring that training is delivered consistent with NOPD's written training plan. 247. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a full-time DepartmentWide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, and designate a single training coordinator in each District and central organizational unit to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division. 248. Within 120 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to establish a Training Advisory Committee that shall include staff from the NOPD Training Division, NOPD field personnel, high-level NOPD command staff (Deputy Superintendent or above), a community representative
65

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 71 of 129
from the Police-Community Advisory Board, two representatives from area colleges and universities, an outside police professional with expertise in model training practices, a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney's office, the USAO, and the City Attorney's Office. 249. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD's Training Advisory Committee shall develop a written training plan for NOPD's recruit academy, field, and in-service training, to ensure that recruits, officers, and civilian personnel are trained to effectively and lawfully carry out their duties in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plan shall comport with best practices and the requirements of this Agreement and shall:
a) define responsibilities and authority of personnel involved in managing, supervising, and implementing training; b) identify training priorities and broad training goals; c) delineate an industry-recognized, systematic approach to training development that includes the following concepts: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This approach should enable NOPD to identify and validate job tasks in sufficient detail to derive learning objectives, which, in turn, should drive the selection of instructional strategies and assessments; d) develop instructional strategies that incorporate active learning methods such as problem-solving and scenario-based activities, based on current theories of learning; e) address program administration policies, classroom/facility use, and instructor training and development; and f) establish the frequency and subject areas for recruit and in-service training. 250. Upon the Superintendent's approval of the training plan, NOPD shall submit the training plan to the Monitor and DOJ. The Monitor shall review the training plan and provide the Parties with written comments within 30 days of receipt thereof. DOJ shall have 30 days from receipt of the Monitor's comments on the training plan to determine whether the training plan is consistent with the requirements of this Agreement and to make its decision on approval. DOJ shall not unreasonably withhold approval. 251. The Training Advisory Committee shall annually review and update NOPD's training plan. To inform this update, the Training Advisory Committee shall conduct a needs assessment, taking into consideration: trends in misconduct complaints; problematic uses of force; analysis
66

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 72 of 129
of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels ofNOPD; input from members of the community, including community concerns; court decisions; research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual District needs; and any changes to Louisiana or federal law or to NOPD policy. B. Curriculum Development 252. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall create and staff a full-time position of Curriculum Director to establish and oversee a formal training curriculum development and assessment process consistent with the training plan described above. The Curriculum Director shall ensure that curricula and related lesson plans are based on learning objectives that are directly linked to validated job tasks. 253. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a lesson plan template that will be used for all training courses at NOPD. At a minimum, each template shall include: course title; course overview; date lesson plan was created or updated; learning objectives; prerequisites (if any); course length; required materials, equipment, and facilities; safety measures required (if applicable); testing/certification, and reference list. The lesson plan shall describe content and instructional strategies in sufficient detail to ensure consistent delivery of instruction by different instructors. 254. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement recruit academy curricula that comport with NOPD's training plan and comprehensively address the subject areas listed in paragraph XIX.E., below. 255. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement inservice curricula that comport with NOPD's training plan and that comprehensively address each of the subject areas in which this Agreement requires in-service training. 256. The Curriculum Director shall review all training curricula, lesson plans, and procedures for consistency, quality, accuracy, currency, completeness, and compliance with applicable law and NOPD policy. The Curriculum Director shall ensure that a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats, are incorporated into all training. The Curriculum Director shall also ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor's qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Advisory Committee and, where appropriate, persons external to NOPD with expertise in the relevant lesson areas.
67

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 73 of 129
257. NOPD shall submit all new or revised training curricula and lesson plans for training required by this Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ for review and comment at least 90 days prior to the scheduled date of training delivery. The Monitor shall review the curricula or lesson plans and provide the Parties with written comments within 30 days of receipt thereof. Within 30 days of receipt of the Monitor's comments, DOJ shall have the right to review and comment on whether the curricula and lesson plans are consistent with and incorporate the requirements of this Agreement and applicable law. C. Instructor Selection 258. NOPD agrees to implement the Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Protocols for all staff assigned to the training division and all adjunct instructors within NOPD. NOPD agrees that minimum qualification requirements for Academy staff shall include:
a) Baccalaureate Degree or exceptional practical law-enforcement or subject matter expertise with at least six years of combined NOPD service; b) Successful completion of the FBI Instructor Development Course; and c) No 'sustained' PIB investigations within 24 months of applying for an Academy position or a pending 'open' investigation at time of application. 259. NOPD agrees to actively seek out and retain qualified instructors, including instructors from outside NOPD, with expertise in areas such as law and investigations, as necessary, to supplement the skills of in-house training staff and adjunct instructors. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate experts and guest speakers such as judges, prosecutors, including representatives of the USAO, crime victims, and community members, to participate in courses at the Training Academy. 260. NOPD agrees to ensure that all new and current Training Division staff and NOPD adjunct instructors receive 40 hours of initial training, including training on effective teaching, adult-learning techniques, curriculum development, and annual in-service training. NOPD agrees to require and ensure that instructors use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the Training Division. NOPD agrees to further require that instructors use a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats. 261. Annually, NOPD agrees to evaluate the performance of Training Division staff and all adjunct or other training instructors and shall remove staff and instructors who do not meet
68

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 74 of 129
NOPD criteria. NOPD agrees to document each evaluation using an established set of criteria to be developed pursuant to this Agreement. D. Training Evalnation 262. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a process
that provides for the collection, analysis, and review of data to document the effectiveness of
training and to improve future instruction, course quality, and curriculum. This process shall measure and document student reaction to and satisfaction with the training they received; and student learning as a result of training, including the extent to which students are applying the knowledge and skills acquired in training to their jobs. 263. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement documented and approved testing policies and procedures to ensure that that all testing is valid, reliable, and fair. Both knowledge-based and performance-based tests shall be designed, developed, administered, and scored according to established professional standards of practice. All tests shall be job-related, testing knowledge and skills required for successful job performance. E. Recruit Training Academy 264. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a recruit training program that comports with NOPD's written training plan described above, and that reflects the requirements of this Agreement. 265. NOPD agrees to modify the amount and content of recruit academy training to comport with its written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD agrees to provide recruits with at least 880 hours of academy instruction. 266. In addition to the training requirements reflected in the substantive provisions of this Agreement, NOPD agrees to ensure sufficient recruit academy instructional hours in the following specific areas:
a) appropriate use of force; b) stops, searches, and arrests; c) bias-free policing and community/problem-solving policing; d) investigations, including crime scene investigations and investigative techniques; e) ethics, including preventing and reporting misconduct and peer intervention; f) crisis intervention;
69

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 75 of 129
g) crowd control, including consistent application of field-force tactics and crowd management; h) report writing; i) recognizing, taking, and responding to allegations of misconduct received in the field; j) statutory law, including definitions of specific offenses, and scenario-based exercises to determine the specific elements of offenses; and k) how to communicate with LEP individuals in commonly encountered scenarios. 267. NOPD agrees to structure the recruit training academy so that instruction is delivered in logical progression, to ensure that each skill or unit builds on previous skills or units. NOPD agrees to schedule training modules so that recruits become proficient in fundamental tasks before progressing to more advanced skills and activities. 268. In addition to inclusion in separate training modules, NOPD agrees to incorporate training on constitutional and statutory law; ethical decision making; community policing; deescalation of force; and bias-free policing throughout the course of the recruit training academy. NOPD agrees to reinforce legal concepts in the context of instruction on interviewing and interrogation, crime scene processing, and report writing. 269. NOPD agrees to use problem-based learning and scenario-based exercises throughout the course of the recruit academy. NOPD agrees to ensure that scenario-based exercises have specific training objectives, and to evaluate achievement in multiple areas, such as constitutional and statutory law, officer safety, NOPD procedures, and report writing. NOPD agrees to require recruits to produce actual reports and statements at the end of scenario-based exercises. 270. NOPD agrees to intersperse skills training in areas such as driving, firearms, and defensive tactics throughout the course of the recruit training academy, to allow recruits to develop and reinforce these skills over time. 271. NOPD agrees to not add recruit candidates after the first week of the recruit training academy. 272. To ensure continuity of training, NOPD agrees to minimize interruptions to recruit academy training for the purpose of staffmg special events and other functions. This does not preclude the use of recruits for Mardi Gras-related service functions or in case of emergencies. 273. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to ensure that the recruit academy is sufficiently staffed to effectively train recruits, and that the deployment of recruit academy staff
70

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 76 of 129
to cover patrol shifts or other duties does not disrupt training activities. This does not prohibit academy staff from working 'Mission' patrols. Recruit classes shall not exceed 30 candidates per class. 274. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide recruits and officers with appropriate training facilities to ensure adequate access to safe and effective training. The Parties agree that such training can be provided without constructing any new facilities. F. Field Training Program 275. Within 365 days of Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a fieldtraining program for recruit academy graduates that comports with NOPD's written training plan and this Agreement. NOPD's field training program shall follow academy training and shall be at least 16 weeks. 276. NOPD's policies and procedures on field training shall delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. Only highly qualified officers shall serve as FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. NOPD agrees to establish formal eligibility criteria for FTOs and Field Training Sergeants based on their performance evaluations, previous superior performance as police officers, and complaint and disciplinary histories. FTO appointments will be subject to review for reappointment at the Training Division Commander's discretion. District commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with the Training Academy staff, to remove a field-training officer from the FTO program. 277. NOPD agrees to ensure that all current and new FTOs and Field Training sergeants receive at least 40 hours of initial supervisory-level training and annual in-service training in the following areas: management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication. FTOs and Field Training sergeants shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, their proficiency in managing recruits and subordinates, practicing and teaching community-oriented policing, and solving problems effectively. NOPD shall maintain current documentation ofFTOs' evaluations and training. 278. NOPD agrees to ensure that recruits in the field-training program are trained in a variety of geographic areas within New Orleans; in a variety of shifts; and with several FTOs. 279. Annually, NOPD agrees to review and evaluate the performance ofFTOs and Field Training Sergeants, with re-certification dependant on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Training Division staff.
71

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 77 of 129
280. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality oftheir field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy, and suggestions for changes to Academy training based upon their experience in the FTO program. NOPD agrees to consider feedback and to document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action. 281. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to review and revise its FTO participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates. 282. NOPD's training advisory committee shall conduct, within 365 days of the Effective Date, a study of the feasibility of implementing a Police Training Officer model that would incorporate community- and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning method of teaching. IfNOPD and the City find it feasible, NOPD and the City agree to implement this program.
G. In-Service Training
283. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a mandatory annual in-service training program that comports with NOPD's written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD agrees to provide at least 64 hours ofin-service training to each officer pursuant to this program within 365 Days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and annually thereafter. In-service training will be comprised of a 40-hour core curriculum and 24 hours of additional elective training. Specialized training for officers in certain units or assignments (such as the initia140-hour training for specialized CIT officers)) shall be considered additional elective training. 284. NOPD agrees to create core-training requirements for the following positions: officers; command staff; lieutenants and sergeants; detectives; narcotics investigators; and specialized units. 285. NOPD agrees to plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive roll-call training program. Roll-call training shall be provided at the beginning of each shift. Roll-call training shall include special topics selected by the Training Division Commander or District Commanders that address officer safety, readiness, community concerns, or departmental procedural matters.
72

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 78 of 129
H. Training Records 286. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Division to electronically track, maintain, and report complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system. This system shall, at a minimum:
a) maintain training records for each recruit and each sworn member of the Department; b) record the course description, duration, curriculum, date and location of training, name of instructor, and the personnel who completed the training; and c) document officers who did not complete required training and all corrective actions taken. 287. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement accountability measures, including disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective action, to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner. 288. NOPD agrees to document all training provided to or received by NOPD officers, whether required or otherwise. Officers shall sign an acknowledgement of attendance or digitally acknowledge completion of training. NOPD shall report training delivered and received annually. This report shall include a: a) description of each course, including a summary of the subject matter; the duration, date and location, the name of the instructor, and the number of persons who completed the training; and b) listing of all officers who completed in-service, recruit, specialized, or elective training; and c) listing of officers who did not complete required training and the corrective action taken for each officer.
XIII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Department-Wide Health and Wellness Program 289. NOPD agrees to further develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that comports with best practices and current professional standards, which include: readily accessible confidential counseling services with both direct and indirect
73

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 79 of 129
referrals; critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling; peer counseling; and stress management training. 290. Within 180 days, NOPD agrees to develop a department-wide mental and physical health and wellness program that:
a) provides and specifies access to mental health services for officers following trawnatic incidents; b) ensures that in situations where an officer is referred for a fitness-for-duty evaluation to assess psychological fitness, the evaluation is performed by a provider external to NOPD; c) ensures that the roles, duties, and responsibilities ofNOPD mental health professionals are properly delineated to avoid risk of conflict and increase officer confidence in NOPD provided mental health services; d) provides access to consistent counseling and treatment by mental health professionals; and e) fosters participation and compliance by ensuring confidentiality under federal and state privacy laws; and f) incorporates mental health services for NOPD officers and their families into NOPD's crisis response and emergency preparedness planning. 291. NOPD agrees to compile and distribute a list of internally and externally available mental health services to all officers and employees. NOPD should periodically consult with community and other outside service providers to maintain a current and accurate list of available providers. 292. NOPD agrees to train management and supervisory personnel in officer support services protocols to ensure wide availability and use of officer support services; and agrees to incorporate discussion of currently available officer support services, and how to access those services, into annual officer in-service training. 293. NOPD agrees to involve mental health professionals in developing and providing academy and in-service training on mental health stressors related to law enforcement and the mental health services available to officers. 294. NOPD agrees to involve mental health professionals in officer training on use of force, to address such topics as: peer intervention by fellow officers to stop the use of excessive force; the interaction ofhwnan perception and threat assessment; decision making under highly charged conditions; psychological methods of situation control; patrol de-escalation and defusing
74

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 80 of 129
techniques that not only provide a tactical response, but also respond to the fear stimulated by confrontations; anger management programs; and training in verbal control and communication, including conflict resolution.
XIV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS NOPD agrees to ensure that officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process, and that officers who lead effectively and ethically are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD shall further ensure that poor performance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is reflected in officer evaluations so that NOPD can identify and effectively respond. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD, working with Civil Service, agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Performance Evaluations 295. Within twelve months of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to develop and implement an NOPD-specific system that comports with best practices and the requirements of this Agreement to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis. 296. As part of this program, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to establish a formalized system documenting annual performance evaluations ofeach officer by the officer's direct supervisor that shall include assessment of: a) community engagement and communication with the public as appropriate to assignment; b) use of community-policing and problem-solving strategies as appropriate to assigrunent; c) civilian commendations and complaints; d) disciplinary actions; e) compliance with policies on usage of sick leave and other leave; f) compliance with policies on secondary employment; g) safety (e.g., POST officer safety standards and vehicle operations); h) training; i) report writing; and j) decision-making skills;
75

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 81 of 129
297. Annual performance evaluations shall be based upon all work performed during the specific rating period. The officer's current direct supervisor shall complete the performance evaluation. 298. Performance evaluations shall include a narrative by the supervisor that discusses any areas in which the officer's performance needs to improve, and areas of particular growth and achievement during the rating period. 299. As part ofthe annual performance review process, supervisors shall meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation. In addition, supervisors shall meet with their subordinates on an ongoing basis to discuss their performance and shall document the supervisor's ongoing efforts and communications regarding officer performance challenges and areas of growth. 300. Supervisors shall complete training consistent with best practices on how to effectively evaluate officer performance. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and as part of initial supervisory training, supervisors shall be required to complete at least four hours of training, focused on how to effectively evaluate officer performance. This training is in addition to any training on the mechanics of how to complete employee performance evaluations. The performance evaluations for each supervisor (whether first-line or commander) shall include assessment of the supervisor's ability and effectiveness in conducting the supervisory reviews as required by this Agreement, including monitoring, deterring, and addressing misconduct by officers they supervise. 301. NOPD agrees to hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete performance evaluations oftheir subordinates. B. Promotions 302. Within twelve months of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to develop and implement fair and consistent promotions practices that comport with best police practices and the requirements of this Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are both ethical and effective. NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to provide clear guidance on promotional criteria, and to prioritize effective, constitutional, and community-oriented policing as criteria for promotion. 303. NOPD agrees to request that Civil Service remove from the promotional eligibility list any officer whose history does not strongly indicate that the officer is likely to be ethical and
76

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 82 of 129
effective in the position to which he or she is being considered for promotion. Factors to be considered in making this assessment include:
a) effective use of community-policing strategies; b) number of sustained and not sustained complaints; c) number and circumstances of uses of force, including any found out of policy and use of force complaints; d) disciplinary history; e) problem-solving skills; f) interpersonal skills; g) education; and h) support for departmental integrity measures. 304. NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to establish specific criteria for disciplinary findings, which shall make an officer presumptively ineligible for promotion for a certain time period. Officers with pending investigations or disciplinary action in a matter alleging serious misconduct shall not be eligible for promotion. 305. The City agrees to work with Civil Service to create opportunities to be placed on the promotional list at least every two years.
XV. SUPERVISION NOPD and the City agree to ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Duties of Supervisors 306. NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers. Close and effective supervision requires that supervisors: respond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers' Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support
77

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 83 of 129
to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties. 307. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor. 308. Task force and narcotics supervisors shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill. Investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap. 309. District Platoon Patrol supervisors shall be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill. 310. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. On duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units. 311. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a program to identifY and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. NOPD shall ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent non-acting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks. 312. District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command. All NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement. 313. NOPD shall hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identifY and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-
78

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 84 of 129
disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate. B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training 314. NOPD agrees to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. All current supervisors shall receive 200 hours of mandatory supervisory training within two years of the Effective Date. NOPD shall receive credit for professional police leadership training being provided in 2012 to current NOPD supervisors. All officers becoming supervisors within two years of the Effective Date shall receive 160 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. All officers becoming supervisors after two years of the Effective Date shall receive 80 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. In addition to this initial supervisory training, NOPD agrees to require each supervisor to complete at least 40 hours of supervisor-specific training annually thereafter. In-service training for supervisors, including commanders, shall provide necessary updates and refreshers, as well as training in new skills. 315. NOPD's supervisory training program shall include instruction in the following topics:
a) techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices; b) de-escalating conflict, including through peer intervention when necessary; c) evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-based description, and how to identify "pat," "boilerplate," or conclusory language that is not explained by specific facts; d) investigating officer uses of force; e) responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; f) operation of supervisory tools such as the EWS, mobile recording equipment, and AVL; g) burdens of proof, interview techniques, and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant, or witness credibility, to ensure that investigative findings, conclusions, and recommendations are unbiased, uniform and legally supported; h) evaluating officer performance as part ofNOPD's annual performance evaluation system; i) fostering positive career development and imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions and non-disciplinary corrective action; j) building community partnerships and guiding officers on same; and k) incorporating integrity-related data into COMSTAT reporting.
79

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 85 of 129
C. Early Warning System 316. The City and NOPD agree to develop, implement, and maintain an EWS to support the effective supervision and management ofNOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible. NOPD will regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance ofNOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts. 317. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the City and NOPD agree to create a plan for the implementation of the EWS, which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS. The City and NOPD agree to maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users. 318. The City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a protocol setting out which fields shall include historical data; the historical start date for each field; deadlines for inputting data related to current and new information; and the individuals responsible for capturing and inputting data. NOPD is not expected to include any historical data prior to January 1, 2006. 319. The City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a protocol for using the EWS and information obtained from it. The protocol for using the EWS shall address data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, identifying officers for intervention, supervisory use, supervisory/departmental intervention, documentation and audit. Among protocol requirements, the City and NOPD agree to include:
a) comparative data analysis, including peer group analysis, to identify patterns of activity by individual officers and groups of officers; b) NOPD commander and supervisor review, on a regular basis, of EWS reports regarding each officer under the commander or supervisor's direct command and, at least quarterly, broader, pattern-based reports; c) NOPD commander and supervisor initiation, implementation, and assessment ofthe effectiveness of interventions for individual officers, supervisors, and units, based on assessment of the information contained in the EWS; d) an array of intervention options to facilitate an effective response to identified problems.
80

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 86 of 129
Interventions may take the form of counseling or training, or of other supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. NOPD agrees to seek the services ofmental health professionals and others to ensure that interventions are appropriate and effective. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system; e) specify that the decision to order an intervention for an employee or group using EWS data shall include peer group analysis, including consideration of the nature of the employee's assignment and appropriate thresholds, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the EWS; f) prompt review by NOPD commanders and supervisors of the EWS system records, of all officers upon transfer to their supervision or command; g) evaluation ofNOPD commanders and supervisors based on their appropriate use of the EWS to enhance effective and constitutional policing and reduce risk; and h) mechanisms to ensure monitored and secure access to the EWS to ensure the integrity, proper use, and appropriate confidentiality ofthe data 320. The EWS shall include a computerized relational database, which shall be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve: a) all uses offorce, including critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; b) the number ofECW units in use; c) each canine officer's canine bite ratio; d) all injuries to persons in-custody, including in-custody deaths; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with obstructing or resisting an officer, interfering with a law enforcement investigation, or similar charges; f) all misconduct complaints (and their dispositions); g) data compiled under the stop data collection mechanism; h) all criminal proceedings initiated against an officer, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City and/or its officers or agents, resulting from NOPD operations or the actions ofNOPD personnel; i) all judicial proceedings where an officer is the subject of a protective or restraining order; j) all vehicle pursuits and traffic collisions involving NOPD equipment; k) all loss or theft ofNOPD property or equipment in the custody ofthe employee, including
81

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 87 of 129
currency, firearms, force instruments, and identification cards; I) all interviews or interrogations in violation ofNOPD policy; m) all instances in which NOPD learns or is informed by a prosecuting or judicial authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based upon concerns about the credibility of an NOPD employee or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by an NOPD employee; n) all disciplinary action taken against employees; o) all non-disciplinary corrective action required of employees; p) all awards and commendations received by employees; q) training history, including firearm qualification and other weapon certifications, for each employee; and r) sick leave usage. 321. The EWS shall include appropriate identifying information for each involved employee (i.e., name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender). 322. The City and NOPD agree to maintain computer hardware, including servers, terminals, and other necessary equipment, in sufficient amount and in good working order to permit personnel, including supervisors and commanders, ready and secure access to the EWS system to permit timely input and review ofEWS data as necessary to comply with the requirements of this Agreement. 323. NOPD shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the EWS for at least five years following the officer's separation from the agency except where prohibited by law. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the EWS. On an ongoing basis, NOPD will enter information into the EWS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and shall maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner. No individual within NOPD shall have access to individually identifiable information that is maintained only within the EWS and is about an officer not within that individual's direct command, except as necessary for investigative, technological, or auditing purposes. 324. The EWS computer program and computer hardware will be operational, fully implemented, and used in accordance with policies and protocols that incorporate the requirements ofthis Agreement pursuant to an interim schedule that includes full implementation within three years of the Effective Date. Prior to full implementation of the new EWS, NOPD
82

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 88 of 129
will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by employees or groups of officers. 325. NOPD agrees to provide in-service training to all employees, including officers, supervisors, and commanders regarding EWS protocols prior to its implementation, as required to facilitate proper understanding and use ofthe system. NOPD supervisors shall be trained in and required to use the EWS to ensure that each supervisor has a complete and current understanding ofthe employees under the supervisor's command. Commanders and supervisors shall be trained in evaluating and making appropriate comparisons in order to identify any significant individual or group patterns. 326. Following the initial implementation of the EWS, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the City and NOPD may add, subtract, or modify thresholds, data tables, and fields; modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached; and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries as appropriate. NOPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval to the Monitor and DOJ before implementation to ensure it continues to comply with the intent ofthis Agreement.
D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities 327. Within two years ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to maintain and operate video
cameras and AVL in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras or AVL units, as necessary for reliable functioning. One-half ofthese vehicles will be equipped with video cameras and AVL within one year ofthe Effective Date. NOPD agrees to ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities. 328. NOPD agrees to develop and implement policies and procedures regarding AVL, in-car cameras, ECWs, and similar equipment that require:
a) activation of in-car cameras for all traffic stops and pursuits 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) activation ofECW cameras when the ECW's safety switch is turned off;
83

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 89 of 129
c) activation of in-car cameras, where vehicle is so-equipped, to record requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployment of drug- detection canines, and vehicle searches; d) activation of in-car cameras for incidents in which a prisoner being transported is violent or resistant; e) supervisors to review AVL, in-car camera recordings, and ECW recordings of all officers listed in any NOPD report regarding any incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, or misconduct complaints; f) supervisors to review recordings regularly and to incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers; g) NOPD to retain and preserve recordings for at least two years, or, if a case remains under investigation or litigation longer than two years, at least three years after the final disposition of the matter, including appeals; and h) an officer to notify a supervisor immediately when an event was not recorded. 329. Within 90 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment. 330. Supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, ECW cameras, and similar equipment, as required by policy. Supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed. Supervisors shall refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment. 331. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use offorce or misconduct complaint investigations.
XVI. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers' and other NOPD employees' off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness ofNOPD employees' primary work
84

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 90 of 129
as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards, and which shall include the requirements set out below. A. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office 332. The Secondary Employment Coordinating Office ("Coordinating Office") shall have sole authority to arrange, coordinate, arrange fully-auditable payment, and perform all other administrative functions related to NOPD employees' off-duty secondary law enforcement employment (historically referred to as paid details) and shall be operated in accordance with the requirements ofthis Agreement. 333. The Coordinating Office shall be directed by a civilian with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. This Coordinating Office Director ("Director") shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. The Director shall be an unclassified civil servant appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, shall remain independent from actual or perceived influence by NOPD. 334. The Coordinating Office shall employ a civilian in the role of "Major Special Events" Coordinator with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. This Major Special Events Coordinator shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. This Coordinator will report to the Director.
a) Major Special Events include Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, Essence Music Festival, French Quarter Festival, Voodoo Fest, college bowl and college championship events, professional sporting events, and other events as designated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, the City Attorney, City Council, or the Superintendent as a Major Special Event. 335. The Director's and all other Coordinating Office employees' salaries shall be independent ofthe number of off-duty secondary jobs worked or the amount ofrevenue generated by secondary employment. 336. The Coordinating Office shall be staffed with civilians with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest, and shall not have been NOPD employees within the previous two years.
85

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 91 of 129
337. The Coordinating Office shall not be located in, or immediately adjacent to, NOPD Headquarters, District Headquarters, or a District Substation. B. Coordinating Office Responsibilities 338. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, or as funding is established, the City shall develop and implement and the Coordinating Office shall maintain a searchable list of off-duty secondary employment opportunities, which can be accessed through either the existing NOPD employee web site or another accessible database. 339. The Coordinating Office shall maintain a roster ofNOPD employees interested in working off-duty secondary employment. 340. The Coordinating Office shall establish a rotation system that provides a fair and equitable number of secondary employment opportunities to all NOPD employees in consideration of preferences for assignment and availability. The Coordinating Office shall rotate NOPD employees working Recurring Secondary Employment positions at least every 365 days. The Director shall determine when NOPD employees may retnrn to work for the same employer. This 365 day RSE rotation requirement shall not apply to those individual officers who regularly work recurring assignments at Major Special Event venues, schools, banks, churches, and hospitals. The Director may grant an exception to this rule if the secondary employment work being done requires unique or specialized knowledge or training. 341. The Coordinating Office shall fill all new secondary employment opportunities and temporary vacancies pursuant to written and consistently applied criteria. NOPD employees shall not be permitted to select substitutes or allow another employee to work an assigned secondary job in place ofthe employee. 342. The Coordinating Office shall establish an after-hours notification system, which provides them the capability of accepting information and making assignments 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. 343. The Coordinating Office shall remove NOPD employees from the secondary employment roster where the employees are performing unsatisfactorily, are under suspension, administrative reassignment, or have been charged with a crime. 344. Approval to work secondary employment is not automatically based on assignment through the Coordinating Office. Members shall also be required to comply with all NOPD
86

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 92 of 129
internal procedures governing off-duty secondary employment, including the completion of an NOPD Secondary Employment Authorization Form. 345. The Coordinating Office shall develop and implement a plan for working with NOPD to ensure that supervisors conduct in-person inspections of secondary employment sites based upon the frequency worked. Supervisory oversight at Major Special Events or larger venues, which meet minimum supervisor staffmg level requirements specified under this Agreement, shall be the responsibility of those ranking officers who were selected by the Coordinating Office to work the secondary employment assigrunent. The required number of supervisory officers specified under minimum staffing requirements for Major Special Events or larger venues must be present for the duration of the secondary employment assigrunent. 346. The Coordinating Office shall ensure that no NOPD employee is supervising another employee of higher rank. 347. The Coordinating Office shall be responsible for collecting and maintaining a searchable database of all secondary employment worked. This database shall be searchable by secondary employment assignment and by employee and shall identify the employee working the secondary employment, secondary employment hours, and assigrunent locations. This database shall maintain historic and current information on all employees' secondary employment. 348. A schedule of fees will be established by the City to offset costs associated with the coordination and required support provided through the Coordinating Office to take into account costs, including but not limited to, administrative fees, hourly wage rates, and equipment usages. The schedule of fees shall be publicly available. 349. The Coordinating Office shall be responsible for the annual, public release of the following information:
a) The number ofNOPD employees who worked secondary employment by District and rank; b) The average number of secondary employment hours worked by District and rank; c) The salaries of Coordinating Office employees and the Coordinating Office's administrative operational costs; and d) The net and gross amounts of City income derived through secondary employment. 350. The Coordinating Office shall ensure that all potential employers are notified of their responsibilities, including:
87

- -----------------------.
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 93 of 129
a) Agreeing that individuals or entities seeking to employ off-duty NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office; b) Making all payments in advance and acknowledgement that advanced payments may be subject to forfeiture or penalty assessment associated with late cancellations; c) Agreeing to have secondary employees sign in and sign out every work day; and d) Acknowledging that they are prohibited from providing any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, beyond nominal compensation in the form of food or beverages, to an NOPD employee or the friend or relative of an NOPD employee in exchange for any secondary employment services provided. C. Secondary Employment Compensation 351. The Coordinating Office, working with NOPD and the City, shall develop and implement an auditable payment system that ensures that secondary employment pay is made to NOPD employees. 352. NOPD employees working secondary employment shall not be permitted to receive any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, unless such compensation, bonus, or gift, is provided through and documented by the Coordinating Office and is in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. Nominal compensation in the form of food or beverages is permitted in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. 353. Travel time to and from secondary employment shall not be compensated, unless it involves specialized patrol services or use of specialized equipment. 354. NOPD employees are not permitted to solicit secondary compensation or employment. Individuals or entities seeking to employ NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office. 355. NOPD shall advise all officers that attempting to circumvent or circumventing the secondary employment policy or the Coordinating Office shall subject officers to discipline as warranted, up to and including dismissal. D. Limitations on Secondary Employment Work 356. NOPD and the Coordinating Office shall establish a standard form by which NOPD employees can register to work secondary employment assignments. No employee shall be eligible to work secondary employment without first registering with the NOPD Compliance
88

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 94 of 129
Section and obtaining authorization from the employee's direct supervisor and unit commander. Secondary employment authorization shall be valid for one calendar year. When determining whether an NOPD employee qualifies for authorization to work secondary employment, NOPD and the Coordinating Office shall evaluate factors that include:
a) The quality of the employee's primary employment performance, assessed pursuant to written criteria; b) Whether the employee is an active member of the NOPD or grandfathered Reserve officer in good standing; c) The applicant's disciplinary record, complaint history, and work performance history; d) The applicant's level of experience; and e) Whether the employee is seeking a supervisory or non-supervisory position. Non-supervisory NOPD employees may not supervise secondary employment. 357. Only a POST certified commissioned member who has successfully completed his/her FTO training and has achieved permanent status as Civil Service "Police Officer I" may work police-related secondary employment assignments unsupervised. 358. POST certified commissioned members who completed FTO. training, but have not obtained permanent status of Civil Service "Police Officer I," may work secondary employment if supervised by a ranking officer at the grade of sergeant or above. 359. POST certified commissioned members hired as lateral transfers successfully completing FTO training may work authorized secondary employment unsupervised. 360. Regardless of prior approval, members shall not engage in secondary employment while absent in the following status: sick; Injured On-Duty; Worker's Compensation; Maternity Leave; Leave Without Pay; or Suspended or under Administrative Reassignment with a restricted police commission. Members must return to full duty status and have completed a full tour of duty prior to working a secondary employment opportunity. 361. Secondary employment for City departments and agencies shall be prohibited. Instead, departments and agencies shall cover compensation for employees through authorized City reimbursement procedures. 362. In addition to the secondary employment positions prohibited under current NOPD policy, the following types of work or services shall be prohibited as secondary employment: a) Work in or for Alcoholic Beverage Outlets as defined under NOPD policy;
89

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 95 of 129
b) Private investigations; c) Chauffeur services; except where chauffeur services to public officials, executives or celebrities is secondary to a primary purpose of security. Notwithstanding the foregoing prohibition, motorcycle escorts for chauffeur services and limousines are permitted; d) Security at sexually oriented businesses; e) Employment requiring that the employee act as a civil process server; and f) Security at pawn shops. 363. NOPD employees are prohibited from working secondary employment that conflicts with the employee's NOPD duties and ethical obligations. Prohibitions include: a) Representing anyone before any court or agency of the City, with or without compensation, on a matter in which the City is a party or has a substantial interest; b) Serving as an expert witness in his or her private capacity in any civil or criminal proceeding in which the City is a party or has a substantial interest; c) Working secondary employment during court hours while the employee is under a conflicting subpoena; d) Disclosing confidential information acquired in an official capacity to any secondary employer; e) Using on-duty time to conduct investigations or take other law enforcement action on behalf of a secondary employer, where there would be an actual conflict of interest or appearance ofa conflict ofinterest; f) Knowingly participating in, or soliciting the creation of, any corporation, company, trust, fund, or cooperative banking account for the purpose of billing, receiving compensation, or coordinating services of secondary employment; and g) Taking an assignment that will interrupt or occur during the employee's assigned on-duty NOPD shift. 364. Secondary employment by NOPD employees will be limited to a maximum of24 hours per seven day work week (Sunday through Saturday). Exceptions to the hour limitation may be granted for Major Special Events where manpower requirements are so intensive that sufficient resources may not be available for the safe operation of the event (e.g., Jazz Fest, Mardi Gras). Application for such an event exception will be made in advance via interoffice correspondence (NOPD Form 105) by an employee or event commander that estimates the number of hours an
90

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 96 of 129
employee can exceed the maximum threshold. The application will be forwarded through the appropriate chain of command for final approval by the Superintendent. Secondary employment in excess of the 24-hour limitation carmot be worked unless approved in advance by the Superintendent.
365. No employee, including Reserve officers, shall work more than 16 hours within a
24-hour period. (The 24 hour period begins the first time the employee reports for either regular duty or secondary employment allowing for a minimum of eight hours of rest within each 24-hour period.) These hours are cumulative and include normal scheduled work hours, overtime, off-duty secondary employment, and outside employment. 366. Commissioned Reserve officers are allowed to register for and work secondary employment assignments through the Coordinating Office ifthey are full time active duty officers in good standing or Commissioned Reserve Officers on the Effective Date. The following further limitations and restrictions shall apply to all Reserve members, however:
a) Plain clothes secondary employment coordinated through the Coordinating Office must be approved by the Superintendent or his designee prior to allowing any Reserve officer to work in plain clothes; b) Reserve officers shall not work secondary employment for their current employer or for anyone for whom they have worked full time during any period within two years ofthe Effective Date; c) Reserve officers shall not work secondary employment during the first year after graduation from the Reserve Police Academy; d) Reserve officers who volunteer a minimum of 36 hours in a calendar month are eligible to work a maximum of28 hours in secondary employment during the following calendar month (e.g., a reserve officer who volunteers 36 hours in August would be eligible to work a maximum of28 hours of secondary employment in September); e) Reserve officers who volunteer a minimum of40 hours in a calendar month will be eligible to work a maximum of 32 hours of secondary employment during the following calendar month; f) Reserve ranking officers are not authorized to approve secondary employment. All request forms shall be submitted to the Commander ofthe Reserve Division for approval and forwarding through the chain of command;
91

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 97 of 129
g) Reserve officers shall attach a copy of their monthly time report to their secondary employment authorization request form; h) Reserve officers shall follow all policies and procedures ofNOPD, the NOPD Reserve Division and this Agreement while working secondary employment; and i) Reserve officers are prohibited from coordinating secondary employment for any member of the Department, either regular or reserve members. Reserve officers are also prohibited from individually or cooperatively coordinating secondary employment and the collection of fees for secondary employment contracted through the Coordinating Office. E. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities 367. NOPD employees seeking to work any secondary employment shall submit a signed Secondary Employment Registration Form ("Registration Form") initially and annually thereafter to the Coordinating Office. This Registration Form shall include acknowledgment that: a) the employee understands that working a secondary employment is a privilege subject to strict criteria; b) the employee represents NOPD while working secondary employment; c) the employee must abide by all NOPD policies while working secondary employment; and d) the employee may be disciplined by NOPD for policy violations committed while working secondary employment. 368. Employees working secondary employment shall have the same responsibility to carry appropriate departmental equipment (e.g., police radios) and document their activities in the same manner as if they were on-duty, including completing incident, arrest, and use of force reports, and reporting allegations of misconduct or observed misconduct. F. Secondary Employment Supervision 369. Working with NOPD, the Coordinating Office shall determine the number of employees and supervisors necessary to work a secondary job, considering factors that include: a) The anticipated number of people attending the function; b) Whether alcoholic beverages will be served; c) Whether the event is open to the public or is private/by invitation only; d) The location of the event; and e) The history of the event and employer.
92

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 98 of 129
370. The minimum supervisory requirements for any secondary employment assignment shall be:
a) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of one to four officers may be worked without a ranking officer. In these instances, the most senior officer accepts responsibility for secondary employment related notifications. Supervisory oversight shall be the responsibility of a patrol supervisor in the District of the secondary employment assignment, though officers engaged in secondary employment are expected to abide by general directions from the coordinating office; b) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of five to nine officers shall include at least one ranking officer of at least the grade of sergeant or lieutenant; c) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 10 to 14 officers shall include at least two ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant or lieutenant; d) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 15 to 19 officers shall include at least two ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant and one supervisor of at least the grade of lieutenant; e) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of20 to 24 officers shall include at least three ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant and one supervisor of at least the grade of lieutenant; f) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 25 to 29 officers shall include at least three ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant and two supervisors of at least the grade of lieutenant; g) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 30 officers or more shall include supervisory coverage in addition to that specified above based on the following graduated scale:
(1) One sergeant or above for every five members; (2) One lieutenant or above for every two sergeants; (3) One captain or above for every three lieutenants. 371. Sergeants and lieutenants shall be allowed to back-fill a police officer opening, but those supervisors electing to fill such a vacancy are eligible for compensation at the hourly rate
93

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 99 of 129
approved for the police officer position as negotiated between the Coordinating Office and the employer. Captains or above shall only be allowed to fill open vacancies at a supervisory staffing level equivalent to a captain's position. 372. Supervisors shall supervise NOPD employees working secondary employment in the same manner as if they were working their primary employment. 373. The Coordinating Office will implement a system so that on-duty NOPD patrol supervisors are aware of each secondary job within that supervisor's geographical coverage area and the identity of each employee working each secondary job. 374. The Coordinating Office will implement a system so that each District shall have a current and historical record of all secondary employment worked in the District.
XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fair!y investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below. A. Reporting Misconduct 375. NOPD agrees to continue to require any Department employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report the incident to a supervisor or directly to PIB for review and investigation. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a supervisor, the supervisor shall immediately document and report this information to PIB. Failure to report or document an act of misconduct or criminal behavior is an egregious offense and shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination of employment. B. Response to Internally Discovered Infractions 376. NOPD agrees to develop and establish protocols that require supervisors to take appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action when the supervisor becomes aware of an infraction committed by an officer that is not reported from outside the Department and does not require an immediate PIB notification (e.g., improper use of sick leave, improper attire). The infraction and the supervisor's response shall be reported to PIB within five business
94

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 100 of 129
days. PIB shall review the report and supervisory response to determine whether additional investigation is required and to evaluate the imposed discipline or corrective action to determine whether the supervisory response was fair and consistent with NOPD disciplinary protocols. C. Preventing Retaliation 377. The City and NOPD agree to expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, including discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation ofmisconduct. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, the City, through PIB, shall review NOPD's anti-retaliation policy and its implementation. This review shall consider the alleged incidents of retaliation that occurred or were investigated during the reporting period, the discipline imposed for retaliation, and the supervisors' performance in addressing and preventing retaliation. Following such review, the City shall modify policy and practice as necessary to protect individuals, including other NOPD officers and employees and civilians, from retaliation for reporting misconduct. Retaliation for reporting misconduct or for cooperating with an investigation of misconduct is an egregious offense and shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination of employment. D. Staffing, Selection, and Training Requirements 378. NOPD agrees to continue to have a civilian serve as PIB commander. 379. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that a sufficient number of well-trained staff is assigned and available to complete and review thorough and timely misconduct investigations in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD and the City further shall provide sufficient resources and equipment to ensure that thorough and timely criminal and administrative misconduct investigations are conducted. ICOs shall report directly to the PIB Commander on PIB-related matters. 380. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to review the staffmg ofPIB and ensure that misconduct investigators and commanders possess excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an officer committed misconduct. Officers with a sustained complaint of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force, false arrest, unlawful search or seizure, sexual harassment, discrimination, or dishonesty shall be presumptively ineligible for assignment to PIB.
95

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 101 of 129
381. Officers promoted to the rank of Lieutenant shall, within a reasonable time frame, serve a rotation in PIB. 382. All personnel conducting NOPD officer misconduct investigations, whether assigned to PIB, a District, or elsewhere, shall receive at least 40 hours of initial training in conducting officer misconduct investigations within 365 days of the Effective Date, and shall receive at least eight hours of training each year. This training shall include instruction in:
a) investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; surveillance; and data and case management; b) the particular challenges of administrative police misconduct investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation; properly weighing credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; and the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; c) relevant state, local, and federal law, including state employment law related to officers and the rights of public employees, including but not limited to La. Rev. Stat. 40:2531, "Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation," and local Civil Service Commission requirements, as well as criminal discovery rules such as those set out in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and d) NOPD rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to criminal and administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct. 383. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a plan for conducting regular, targeted, and random integrity audit checks, or "sting" audits, to identify and investigate officers engaging in at-risk behavior, including: unlawful stops, searches, and seizures (including false arrests); discriminatory policing; use of excessive force; secondary employment abuse; failure to take a complaint failure to report misconduct or complaints; or other patterns of misconduct or potentially criminal behavior. E. Complaint Information 384. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a program to ensure broad knowledge throughout the New Orleans community about
96

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 102 of 129
how to make misconduct complaints, and the availability of effective mechanisms for making misconduct complaints. The requirements below shall be incorporated into this program. 385. The City and NOPD agree to make complaint forms and informational materials, including brochures and posters, available at appropriate government properties, including, at a minimum, NOPD headquarters, District stations, NOPD and City websites, City Hall, courthouses within New Orleans, all public libraries, the IPM, the Orleans Public Defenders, and at the offices or gathering places of community groups. Individuals shall be able to submit misconduct complaints through NOPD and City websites and these websites shall include complaint forms and information regarding how to file misconduct complaints. 386. NOPD agrees to post and maintain a permanent placard at all police facilities describing the external complaint process. The placards shall include relevant contact information, such as telephone numbers, email addresses, and internet sites. Officers shall provide the officer's name and badge number upon request. If an individual indicates that he or she would like to make a complaint or requests a complaint form, the officer shall immediately inform his or her supervisor who will respond to the scene to assist the individual in providing appropriate forms and/or other available mechanisms for filing a misconduct complaint. 387. Complaint forms and related informational materials shall be made available and posted in Spanish, Vietnamese, and English. F. Complaint Intake, Classification, Assignment, and Tracking 388. NOPD agrees to, within 365 days of the Effective Date, revise policy and train all officers and supervisors to ensure that they properly handle complaint intake, including how to properly provide complaint materials and information and the consequences for failing to take complaints. 389. The refusal to accept a misconduct complaint, discouraging the filing of a misconduct complaint, or providing false or misleading information about filing a misconduct complaint, shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination. 390. NOPD agrees to accept all misconduct complaints, including anonymous and third-party complaints, for review and investigation. Complaints may be made in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail. Any LEP individual who wishes to file a complaint about an NOPD officer or employee shall be provided with a complaint form in English, Spanish, or Vietnamese, as appropriate, and the appropriate
97

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 103 of 129
translation services required to file a complaint, and such complaints will be investigated in accordance with this Agreement. 391. All officers and employees who receive a misconduct complaint in the field shall immediately inform a supervisor of the misconduct complaint so that the supervisor can ensure proper intake of the complaint. All misconduct complaints received outside ofPIB shall be documented and submitted to PIB by the end of the shift in which it was received. 392. Upon notification by the City Attorney's Office, the DA, or judges or magistrates, NOPD agrees to ensure that allegations of officer misconduct are identified and investigated as misconduct complaints. The City Attorney's Office agrees to forward copies of all civil suits alleging misconduct by an NOPD officer to PIB. 393. NOPD agrees to track, as a separate category of misconduct complaints, allegations that an officer has in any way interfered with a civilian's First Amendment right to observe, record, and/or verbally comment on the performance of police duties in an area open to the public, or where the individual has a right to be, such as a person's home or business. Improper interference with this right includes improperly detaining or arresting individuals for interfering with a law enforcement investigation, disorderly conduct, or similar charges. 394. NOPD agrees to track, as a separate category of misconduct complaints, allegations of discriminatory policing, along with characteristics of the complainants. NOPD agrees to ensure that complaints of discriminatory policing are captured and tracked appropriately. 395. Within 365 days of the Effective date, PIB shall develop and implement a centralized numbering and tracking system for all misconduct complaints. Upon the receipt of a complaint, PIB shall promptly assign a unique numerical identifier to the complaint, which shall be provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. Where a misconduct complaint is received in the field, a supervisor shall obtain the unique numerical identifier and provide this identifier to the complainant. 396. NOPD's centralized numbering and tracking system shall maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all misconduct complaints, from initial intake to final disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the interim status and final disposition of the investigation. This system shall be used to determine the status of complaints and to confirm that a complaint was received, as well as for periodic
98

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 104 of 129
assessment of compliance with NOPD policies and procedures and this Agreement, including requirements on the timeliness of administrative investigations. 397. Where a supervisor receives a misconduct complaint in the field alleging that misconduct has just occurred, the supervisor shall gather all relevant information and evidence and provide this information and evidence to PIB. This information includes the names and contact information for all complainants and witnesses, the names of all NOPD officers and employees involved in or witnessing the alleged misconduct, and any available physical evidence, such as voluntarily provided video or audio recordings, or documentation of the existence of such recordings where the witness chooses not to provide the recording. The supervisor shall take photographs of apparent injuries, or the absence thereof, unless the complainant/subject objects or declines. 398. Within three business days of the receipt of a misconduct complaint, PIB shall determine whether the complaint will be: assigned to an !CO or supervisor; retained by PIB for investigation or referred to the appropriate outside agency; and whether it will be investigated criminally. 399. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a complaint classification protocol that is allegation-based rather than anticipated outcome-based to guide PIB in determining where a complaint should be assigned. This complaint classification protocol shall ensure that PIB or an authorized outside agency investigates allegations including:
a) serious misconduct, including but not limited to: criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft; b) misconduct implicating the conduct of the supervisory or command leadership of the subject officer; and c) subject to the approval by the Deputy Superintendent ofPIB, allegations that any commander requests be conducted by PIB rather than the subject officer's District/Division. 400. Where NOPD or the City determines that an externally-generated complaint contains no allegations of misconduct, the complaint shall receive a disposition of "exonerated" or ''unfounded" and include for tracking purposes an indication that it was a complaint regarding service or otherwise contained no allegations of misconduct. NOPD agrees to cease the use of "No Violation Observed," "NIMS," or similar dispositions of misconduct allegations. NOPD
99

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 105 of 129
will use the classification "No Formal Investigation Merited" to resolve only the following types of complaints:
a) complaints disputing traffic citations, except that allegations of misconduct contained in such complaints (e.g., racial profiling, illegal search, excessive force) will be classified and investigated according to its merits; b) complaints alleging a delay in police service such as patrol response or detective follow-up, where the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the delay is due to workload. However, if the preliminary investigation discloses that misconduct such as negligence rather than workload caused the delay, the complaint will be classified according to its merits; c) complaints regarding off-duty officer conduct of a civil nature, unless the alleged conduct or its effects constitute misconduct or have a substantial nexus to the officer's employment; and d) complaints in which the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the subject officer does not work for NOPD or where the identity of the subject officer cannot be determined, despite the best efforts of PIB. 401. A misconduct complaint investigation may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident; whose conduct led to the injury of a person; who authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident or complaint; or who witnessed or was involved in the incident leading to the allegation of misconduct G. Investigation Timeframe 402. NOPD and the City agree to make good faith efforts to have state law amended to permit a reasonable timeframe for the completion of administrative investigations of officer misconduct so that such investigations can be thorough, reliable, and complete. 403. All administrative investigations conducted by PIB shall be completed within the time limitations mandated by state law and within 90 days of the receipt of the complaint, including assignment, investigation, review and fmal approval, unless granted an extension as provided for under state law or Civil Service exemption, in which case the investigation shall be completed
within 120 days. Where an allegation is sustained, NOPD shall have 30 days to determine and
impose the appropriate discipline, except in documented extenuating circumstances, in which case discipline shall be imposed within 60 days. All administrative investigations shall be
100

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 106 of 129
subject to appropriate interruption (tolling period) as necessary to conduct a concurrent criminal investigation or as provided by law. H. Collection of Evidence 404. Officer misconduct investigations shall be as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings. The misconduct complaint investigator shall interview each complainant in person, absent extenuating circumstances, and this interview shall be recorded in its entirety, absent specific, documented objection by the complainant. 405. All witnesses, including officers witnessing or involved in an incident that becomes the subject ofa misconduct complaint, shall provide a written statement regarding the incident or be interviewed as described below. 406. Where the alleged misconduct is particularly serious or interviews ofthe subject officer(s) or other witnesses may be necessary to sufficiently investigate the allegation, the
investigator shall conduct an in-person interview. The interview shall be recorded in its entirety,
absent, in the case of non-officer witnesses, specific documented objection. 407. Each officer, witness, and complainant shall be interviewed separately. A NOPDAI not involved in the underlying complaint will be used when taking statements or conducting interviews ofany Vietnamese or Spanish speaking LEP complainant or witness. 408. The misconduct investigator shall seek to identify all persons at the scene giving rise to a misconduct allegation, especially all NOPD officers. The investigator shall note in the investigative report the identities of all officers and other witnesses who were on the scene but assert they did not witness and were not involved in the incident. The investigator shall conduct further investigation of any such assertions that appear unsupported by the evidence. 409. All misconduct investigation interview recordings shall be stored and maintained in a secure location within PIB. 410. NOPD agrees to require officers to cooperate with administrative investigations, including appearing for an interview when requested by an NOPD or Inspector General investigator and providing all requested documents and evidence. Supervisors shall be notified when an officer under their supervision is summoned as part of an administrative investigation, and shall facilitate the officer's appearance, absent extraordinary and documented circumstances. 411. If at any time during complaint intake or investigation the investigator determines that there may have been criminal conduct on the part of any officer or employee, the investigator
101

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 107 of 129
shall immediately notify the PIB commander. The PIB commander shall immediately notify the Superintendent, the DA and/or USAO, and the Monitor ofthe initiation of a criminal investigation. The subject officer shall not be compelled to provide a statement to administrative investigators where there is a potential criminal investigation or prosecution of the officer, until the remainder of the investigation has been completed, unless after consultation with prosecuting agency (e.g., DA or USAO) and the PIB commander, such compulsion is deemed appropriate by the Superintendent. NOPD and the City agree to consult with the DA to develop and implement protocols to ensure that the criminal and administrative investigations can be conducted in parallel as appropriate and are kept separate after a subject officer has provided a compelled statement.
412. Nothing in this Agreement or NOPD policy shall hamper an officer's obligation to
provide a public safety statement regarding a work related incidentor activity. NOPD agrees to make clear in policy and training that all officer statements in incident reports, arrest reports, use of force reports, and similar documents, and statements made in interviews such as those conducted in conjunction with NOPD's routine use of force review and investigation process, are part of each officer's routine professional duties.
I. Analysis of Evidence 413. In each investigation, NOPD shall consider all relevant evidence, including
circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations based upon that evidence. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will NOPD disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant or because of any criminal history. NOPD shall make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
414. The resolution of any misconduct complaint must be based upon the preponderance of
the evidence. A misconduct investigation shall not be closed simply because the complaint is withdrawn or because the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide additional information beyond the initial complaint. In such instances, the investigation shall continue as necessary within the allowable investigation timefrarnes established under this Agreement to resolve the original allegation(s) where possible based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found
102

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 108 of 129
guilty of an offense shall not be the deciding factor as to whether an NOPD officer committed the alleged misconduct, nor shall it justifY discontinuing the investigation. 415. The misconduct investigator shall explicitly identifY and recommend one of the following dispositions for each allegation of misconduct in an administrative investigation:
a) "Unfounded," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did not occur or did not involve the subject officer; b) "Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur; c) "Not Sustained," where the investigation is unable to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged misconduct occurred; or d) "Exonerated," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate NOPD policies, procedures, or training. 416. The PIB commander shall accept the investigator's recommended disposition and the Superintendent shall approve the disposition, unless the disposition is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence or additional investigation is necessary to reach a reliable finding. Where the disposition is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, the PIB Commander may correct the disposition or order additional investigation, as necessary. 417. In addition to determining whether the officer committed the alleged misconduct, administrative investigations shall assess and document whether: (a) the police action was in compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and (d) the incident suggests that NOPD should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training. This information shall be shared with the relevant commander(s) who shall document the commander's disagreement or agreement with these findings, refer any recommendations to the appropriate individual to implement the recommended change, document the implementation ofthese recommendations, and return the documentation to PIB.
J. Integrity of Investigative File and Evidence
418. Division/District-Level investigation reports and all related documentation and evidence shall be provided to PIB immediately upon completion and approval by the appropriate supervisor ofthe investigation, but no later than three business days.
103

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 109 of 129
419. All investigation reports and related documentation and evidence shall be securely maintained in a central and accessible location until the officer who was a subject of the complaint has severed employment with NOPD. K. Communication with Complainant 420. Each misconduct complainant will be kept informed periodically regarding the status of the investigation. The complainant will be notified of the outcome of the investigation, in writing, within ten business days of the completion of the investigation, including regarding whether any disciplinary or non-disciplinary action was taken. L. Discipline Process and Transparency 421. NOPD agrees to ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct will be based on the nature of the allegation and defined and consistent, mitigating and aggravating factors, rather than the identity of the officer or his or her status within NOPD or the broader community. NOPD and the City agree to develop and implement procedures to ensure that discipline is fair and consistent. 422. NOPD agrees to use a disciplinary matrix that:
a) establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation; b) increases the presumptive discipline based both on an officer's prior violations of the same or other rules; c) sets out defined mitigating or aggravating factors; d) requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing; e) provides that NOPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition ofdiscipline; and f) provides that NOPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed. 423. NOPD and the City agree to establish a unified system for reviewing sustained findings and assessing the appropriate level of discipline pursuant to NOPD's disciplinary matrix, in order to facilitate consistency in the imposition of discipline. All disciplinary decisions shall be documented, including the rationale behind any decision to deviate from the level of discipline set out in the disciplinary matrix.
104

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 110 of 129
424. NOPD and the City agree to develop and establish written policies and procedures to ensure that the City Attorney's Office provides close guidance to NOPD at the disciplinary stage to ensure that NOPD's disciplinary decisions are as fair and legally defensible as possible. 425. The City agrees to request the Civil Service Commission to, within 90 days of the Effective Date, post online its full decisions related to NOPD discipline in a timely manner. M. Annual Report 426. PIB shall include in its annual report a summary of each misconduct complaint, including a description of the allegation, the final approved disposition, and any discipline imposed. PIB's annual report shall also include aggregate misconduct complaint data showing the number of each type of complaint and the number and rate of sustained cases after final approval, and shall provide an analysis of this data that identifies trends and concerns and documents NOPD's response to the identified trends and concerns. The PIB and IPM shall coordinate and confer with each other in collecting, analyzing, and reporting this data to avoid or minimize duplication of efforts or resources.
XVIII. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT To ensure comprehensive, effective, and transparent oversight ofNOPD, NOPD and the City agree to develop, implement, and maintain systems that are meant to be sustained after the completion of this Agreement. To facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, these oversight systems shall ensure that improper incidents, practices, or trends, are identified and corrected in an equitable and timely manner. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below. A. Data Collection and Public Reporting 427. All NOPD audits and reports related to the implementation of this Agreement shall be publicly available via website and at the Police Department, City Hall, and other public locations, to the fullest extent permissible under law. 428. Within 30 days of its implementation, each NOPD policy, procedure, and manual, including those created pursuant to this Agreement, shall be posted online and otherwise made publicly available, unless NOPD documents a reasonable security reason for keeping the policy, procedure, or manual private. Where a portion of a manual may not be suitable for public availability, NOPD agrees to make the remainder of the manual publicly available.
105

------------
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 111 of 129
429. NOPD shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities, as permitted by law. B. United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group 430. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and implement a system of formal coordination between a command-level NOPD official and the DA, municipal and state court judges, the Orleans Public Defenders, the FBI, the USAO, and the IPM. This criminal justice coordination group shall be convened by the USAO and shall meet monthly to share regular feedback regarding the quality ofNOPD arrests and indicia of misconduct; to refer specific allegations of misconduct for investigation; and to receive an update on the status of previous referrals. 431. The NOPD command-level official shall be accountable for documenting feedback and referrals received; ensuring that operational changes based upon this feedback are considered and made as appropriate; ensuring that all allegations of misconduct are investigated; and providing an update each month to the USAO-convened criminal coordination group regarding the status ofinvestigations of previously referred allegations of misconduct, and the status ofconsideration of operational changes as a result of feedback received from the group. C. District Community Outreach Programs and Meetings 432. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a Community Outreach and Public Information program in each NOPD District. 433. The Community Outreach and Public Information program shall include at least one semi-annual open meeting in each ofNOPD's eight Districts for the first year of this Agreement, and one meeting in each District annually thereafter. These open meetings shall be led by the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent and shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement; NOPD's progress meeting these requirements; and address areas of community concern related to public trust and constitutional policing. At least one week before such meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using earned media opportunities. In determining the locations of the meetings, NOPD shall consider factors such as easy access to public transportation and child care.
106

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 112 of 129
434. The Community Outreach and Public Information meetings shall include summaries of all pertinent audits and reports completed pursuant to this Agreement and inform the public of any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. 435. For at least the first two years of this Agreement, every NOPD officer and supervisor assigned to a District shall attend at least two community meetings (e.g., NONPACC and other meetings with residents, business and religious groups) per year in the geographic area to which the officer is assigned. D. Police-Community Advisory Board 436. DOJ acknowledges that NOPD and community representatives have acted jointly to create a PCAB to facilitate regular communication and cooperation between the Department, the City, and community leaders, including youth leaders, such as through the development of a community advisory panel and the collaborative development of policing strategies and priorities. 437. NOPD agrees to work collaboratively with PCAB to develop and implement public safety strategies that respect and reflect each community's public safety priorities and concerns about particular police tactics. To the extent specified below, NOPD agrees to seek PCAB's assistance, counsel, and input to build community consensus on potential recommendations in areas including the following:
a) community policing strategies; b) accountability for professional/ethical behavior by individual police officers; c) special task forces that meet high priority community need; d) central policy changes, where applicable, that improve quality of life; e) resource allocations to meet high priority, difficult issues; f) strategies for a qualified and diverse workforce; g) providing information to the community and conveying feedback from the community to NOPD;and h) ways to provide data and information, including information about NOPD's compliance with this Agreement, to the public in a transparent and public-friendly format, to the greatest extent allowable by law.
107

------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 113 of 129
438. NOPD further agrees to participate in quarterly meetings scheduled by PCAB; to allow the meeting agenda to be determined by the PCAB; and to have command/executive level staff representation present at all regularly scheduled meetings. E. Community-Based Restorative Justice Project 439. NOPD and the City agree to participate in a community-based restorative justice project. NOPD, the City, and DOJ will work to identify an entity to fund and administer this project. The aim of this project shall be to help remedy mistrust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community and create an environment for successful problem-solving partnerships. F. Office of the Independent Police Monitor 440. This Agreement in no way diminishes the authority and oversight provided by the IPM pursuant to city ordinance and the related Memorandum of Understanding between the IPM and NOPD. 441. NOPD and the City agree to provide the IPM ready and timely access to the information necessary to fulfill its duties. The IPM shall have all access to confidential information, including all protections and authority of state law, as does New Orleans' Office oflnspector General. 442. NOPD and the City agree to abide by the November 10,2010, Memorandum of Understanding between the NOPD and the IPM. This MOU is hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 443. In determining the timing and content of its reviews and audits, the IPM will coordinate with the Monitor and NOPD to minimize duplication of effort, recognizing that overlapping or redundant audits may be necessary on occasion to assess the quality and reliability of various internal and external oversight mechanisms.
XIX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT A. Role of the Monitor
444. The Monitor shall assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD. 445. The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court, consistent with this Agreement. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred
108

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 114 of 129
by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent. 446. In order to assess and report on the Defendant's implementation of this Agreement and whether implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews, audits, and assessments specified below, and such additional audits, reviews, and assessments as the Monitor or the Parties jointly deem necessary to determine whether this Agreement has been implemented as required. B. Compliance Reviews and Audits 447. The Monitor shall conduct compliance reviews or audits as necessary to determine whether the City and NOPD have implemented and continue to comply with the material requirements of this Agreement. Compliance with a material requirement of this Agreement requires that the City and NOPD have: (a) incorporated the requirement into policy; (b) trained all relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to the requirement; and (c) ensured that the requirement is being carried out in actual practice. Compliance reviews and audits shall contain the elements necessary for reliability and comprehensiveness. Compliance reviews and audits may be conducted using sampling and compilation data as consistent with reliability and comprehensiveness. Outcome Assessments in Section XIX.C. may not require a review of all NOPD data on a specific statistic or category. C. Outcome Assessments 448. In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct assessments to measure whether implementation of this Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis of the following outcome data:
a) Use of Force measurements, including: (1) Rate offorce used per arrest by NOPD overall and by force type, geographic area (i.e., zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender, and etlmicity; (2) Canine bite ratio; (3) Rate of force complaints that are sustained and rate that are not sustained, overall and by force type; geographic area (i.e., zone), source of complaint (internal or external), type of arrest, age, race, gender and ethnicity; (4) Uses of Force that were found to violate policy overall and by force type, geographic area (i.e., zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender and etlmicity;
109

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 115 of 129
(5) Number and rate of Use of Force administrative investigations/reviews in which each finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and (6) Number of officers who frequently or repeatedly use force, or have more than one instance of force found to violate policy. b) Stop, Search, and Arrest measurements, including: (I) Number and rate of arrests for which there is documented reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e., zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity; (2) the DA's acceptance and refusal rates of arrests made by NOPD and reasons for refusals, when made available by the DA, including those factors and information indicating that a failure to prosecute was due to the quality of officer arrests or concerns regarding officer conduct, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e. zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity; and (3) Number and rate of searches that result in a finding of contraband, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e., zone) type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity. c) Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement measurements, including: (1) Number and variety of community partnerships, including particular partnerships with youth; (2) homicide clearance rate; (3) Comparative response time between LEP and non LEP individuals seeking assistance from NOPD and change in response time to LEP individuals.; (4) Accurate classification of reports of sexual assault and domestic violence; and (5) Clearance rate of sexual assault and domestic violence cases, overall and broken down by whether the case was cleared by arrest or by exception, including accuracy of clearance type. d) Recruitment and Training measurements, including: (1) Number of highly-qualified recruit candidates; (2) Officer and agency reports of adequacy of training in type and frequency; and
110

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 116 of 129
(3) Role of insufficient training reflected in problematic incidents or by performance trends. e) Officer Assistance and Support measurements, including: (1) Availability and use of officer assistance and support services; and (2) Officer reports of adequacy of officer assistance and support. f) Performance Evaluation and Promotion measurements, including: (1) Promotions of qualified candidates with a history of ethical decision-making; and (2) Uses offorce found to be unreasonable, misconduct complaints sustained and not sustained, and other performance-related indicators for supervisors/commanders promoted pursuant to the requirements of this Agreement, and for the units these supervisors/commanders command. g) Supervision measurements, including: (I) Initial identification of officer violations and performance problems by supervisors, and effective response by supervisors to identified problems. h) Secondary Employment measurements, including: (1) Policy and legal violations related to secondary employment. i) Accountability measurements, including: (1) Number of misconduct complaints, and whether any increase or decrease appears related to access to the complaint process; (2) Rate of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded misconduct complaints; (3) Number and rate of misconduct complaint allegations supported by a preponderance of the evidence; (4) Number of officers who are subjects of repeated misconduct complaints, or have repeated instances of sustained misconduct complaints; (5) Arrests/summons of officers for on or off-duty conduct; (6) Criminal prosecutions ofofficers for on or off-duty conduct; and (7) Number and nature of civil suits against NOPD officers and amount of judgments or settlements against the City or NOPD for civil suits filed against NOPD officers for work-related conduct.
Ill

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 117 of 129
449. In conducting these outcome assessments the Monitor may use any relevant data collected and maintained by NOPD (e.g., crime trend pattern analysis), the Office of the Inspector General, or the IPM, provided that it has determined, and the Parties agree, that this data is reasonably reliable and complete. D. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology 450. Within 90 days of assuming duties as Monitor, the Monitor shall develop a plan for conducting the above outcome assessments and compliance reviews and audits, and shall submit this plan to the Parties for review and approval. This plan shall:
a) clearly delineate the requirements of the Agreement to be assessed for compliance, indicating which requirements will be assessed together; b) set out a schedule for conducting outcome measure assessments for each outcome measure at least annually, except where otherwise noted, with the first assessment occurring within 12 months ofthe Effective Date; c) set out a schedule for conducting a compliance review or audit of each requirement of this Agreement within the first two years of the Agreement, and a compliance review or audit of each requirement at least annually thereafter. 451. Within 120 days of assuming duties as Monitor, the Monitor shall review and recommend any changes to the Outcome Assessment measurements set out in section XIX.C, above, that the Monitor deems useful in assessing whether implementation of the Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing The Parties shall adopt any recommendations upon which they agree. If the Parties disagree whether to adopt a particular outcome measurement, the Party seeking adoption may seek Court resolution. 452. Where the Monitor recommends and the Parties agree, the Monitor may refrain from conducting a compliance audit or review of a requirement previously found to be in compliance by the Monitor pursuant to audit or review, or where outcome assessments indicate that the outcome intended by the requirement has been achieved. 453. At least 90 days prior to the initiation of any outcome measure assessment or compliance review or audit, the Monitor shall submit a proposed methodology for the assessment, review, or audit to the Parties. The Parties shall submit any comments or concerns regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitor within 45 days of the proposed date of the assessment, review, or
112

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 118 of 129
audit. The Monitor shall modify the methodology as necessary to address any concerns or shall inform the Parties in writing of the reasons it is not modifying its methodology as proposed. E. Review of Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations 454. City and NOPD shall provide each investigation of a serious use of force or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint investigation (i.e., criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft), to the Monitor before closing the investigation or communicating the recommended disposition to the subject of the investigation or review. The Monitor shall review each serious use of force investigation and each serious misconduct complaint investigation and recommend for further investigation any use of force or misconduct complaint investigations that the Monitor determines to be incomplete or for which the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Monitor shall provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete or inadequately supported by the evidence. The Superintendent shall determine whether the additional investigation or modification recommended by the Monitor should be carried out. Where the Superintendent determines not to order the recommended additional investigation or modification, the Superintendent will set out the reasons for this determination in writing. The Monitor shall provide recommendations so that any further investigation or modification can be concluded within the timeframes mandated by state law. The Monitor may coordinate with the IPM in conducting these use of force and misconduct investigation reviews. F. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance 455. The Monitor may make recommendations to the Parties regarding measures necessary to ensure timely, full, and effective implementation of this Agreement and its underlying objectives. Such recommendations may include a recommendation to change, modify, or amend a provision of the Agreement; a recommendation for additional training in any area related to this Agreement; or a recommendation to seek technical assistance. In addition to such recommendations, the Monitor may also, at the request ofDOJ or the City and based on the Monitor's reviews, provide technical assistance consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement.
113

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 119 of 129
G. Comprehensive Re-Assessment 456. Two years after the Effective Date, the Monitor shall conduct a comprehensive assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this Agreement have been achieved, and any modifications to the Agreement that are necessary for continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) of the requirement. This assessment also shall address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating full and effective compliance. Based upon this comprehensive assessment, the Monitor shall recommend modifications to the Agreement that are necessary to achieve and sustain intended outcomes. Where the Parties agree with the Monitor's recommendations, the Parties shall stipulate to modifY the Agreement accordingly. This provision in no way diminishes the Parties' ability to stipulate to modifications to this Agreement as set out in section XIX.P, below. Nothing in this assessment shall empower the Monitor to unilaterally modifY the terms of this Agreement. H. Monitor Reports 457. The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) a description of the work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting period; b) a listing of each Agreement requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date ofthe review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice; c) the methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitor and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) for any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor's recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance;
114

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 120 of 129
e) the methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) a projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the Agreement. 458. The Monitor shall provide a copy of quarterly reports to the Parties in draft form at least I0 business days prior to Court filing and public release of the reports to allow the Parties to informally comment on the reports. The Monitor shall consider the Parties' responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. I. Coordination with IPM 459. In conducting its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing its monitoring plan and review methodologies, the Monitor may coordinate and confer with the IPM to avoid duplication of effort and expenses. J. Communication between Monitor, Parties, and Public 460. The Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Parties in order to ensure effective and timely communication regarding the status of the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement. To facilitate this communication, the Monitor shall conduct monthly meetings that shall include participation by the Superintendent and representatives of the City Attorney's Office, and DOJ. 461. The Monitor shall meet with community stakeholders to explain the Monitor's reports to inform the public about the Agreement implementation process, and to hear community perspectives of police interactions. K. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest 462. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties acting together, the Monitor, including any agent, employee, or independent contractor thereof, shall not make any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the City 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 regarding its employment or monitoring activities under this Agreement shall first be approved by DOJ and the City. 463. The Monitoring may testify as to its observations, findings, and recommendations before the Court with jurisdiction over this matter, but shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the City or any of its agents, representatives, or
115

----------
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 121 of 129
employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor may have received knowledge of as a result of its performance under this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement. 464. 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 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 City or its departments, officers, agents, or employees. 465. 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. 466. The Monitor shall not be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor's performance pursuant to this Agreement brought by non-parties to this Agreement.
L. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit
467. The City and NOPD agree to hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation of this Agreement. This unit will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, this unit will: coordinate the City and NOPD's compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City and NOPD personnel to the Monitor and DOJ, as needed; ensure that all data, documents, and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to NOPD personnel, as directed by the Superintendent or his designee.
M. Implementation Assessment and Report
468. NOPD and the City agree to collect and maintain all data and records necessary to: (1) document implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, including data and records necessary for the Monitor to conduct reliable outcome assessments, compliance reviews, and audits; and (2) allow NOPD or other City entities to perform ongoing quality assurance in each of the areas addressed by this Agreement.
116

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 122 of 129
469. Within six months of the Effective Date, the City agrees to file with the Court, with a copy to the Monitor and DOJ, a status report. This report shall delineate the steps taken by NOPD during the reporting period to implement this Agreement; and the City's assessment of the status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to any concerns raised in the Monitor's previous quarterly report. Following this initial status report, the City agreesto file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect. N. Access and Confidentiality 470. To facilitate its work, the Monitor may conduct on-site visits and assessments without prior notice to the City and NOPD. The Monitor shall have access to all necessary individuals, facilities, and documents, which shall include access to Agreement related trainings, meetings, and reviews, such as critical incident reviews, use of force review boards, and disciplinary hearings. NOPD shall notifY the Monitor as soon as practicable, and in any case within 12 hours, of any critical firearms discharge, in-custody death, or arrest of any officer. 471. The City and NOPD agree to ensure that the Monitor shall have timely, full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, critical incident crime scenes, 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 City and NOPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations. 472. City and NOPD shall ensure that the Monitor has full and direct access to all City and NOPD documents and data that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents or data protected by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege may not be used to prevent the Monitor from observing reviews and trainings such as use of force review boards, or disciplinary hearings. Should the City and NOPD decline to provide the Monitor access to documents or data based on privilege, the City and NOPD shall inform the Monitor and DOJ that they are withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis ofthe privilege for withholding. 473. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, DOJ and its consultants and agents shall have full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data. DOJ and its consultants and agents shall cooperate with the City and NOPD to access
117

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 123 of 129
involved personnel, facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that, consistent with DOJ's responsibilities to enforce this Agreement, minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the City and NOPD decline to provide DOJ with access to documents or data based on privilege, the City and NOPD shall inform DOJ that they are withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis of the privilege for withholding. 474. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the City and NOPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the City and NOPD shall provide in a timely manner copies (electronic, where readily available) of the requested documents to the Monitor and DOJ. 475. The Monitor shall have access to all records and information relating to criminal investigations ofNOPD officers as permissible by law. The Monitor shall have access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by NOPD after the Effective Date. The Monitor also shall have reasonable access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications initiated after the Effective Date whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files. Where practicable, arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications initiated after the Effective Date shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files. 476. The Monitor and DOJ shall maintain all non-public information provided by the City and NOPD 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 City and NOPD 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. 0. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor 477. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, or additional time if agreed to by both Parties, the City and DOJ shall together select a Monitor, acceptable to both, which shall assess and report on NOPD's implementation of this Agreement. The Parties have agreed to use New Orleans's procurement process in selecting the Monitor. This process shall be implemented in a manner consistent with this Agreement, including the requirement that the Monitor be jointly selected and acceptable to both DOJ and the City. The Parties' Monitor selection shall be subject to the
118

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 124 of 129
approval of the Federal Court with jurisdiction over this Agreement. The Monitor's team shall consist of individuals of the highest ethics. 478. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within the timeframe agreed to by both parties as of the Effective Date, then the Court shall resolve the disagreement. 479. The Monitor shall be appointed for a period of four years from the Effective Date and the appointment shall be extended automatically should the City and NOPD not demonstrate full and effective compliance at the end of this four-year period. The extension of the Monitor beyond six years shall be allowed only if the Court determines that it is reasonably necessary in order to assess and facilitate full and effective compliance with this Agreement. 480. The City shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. DOJ and the City recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the City 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 City, DOJ, and the Monitor shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court to resolve such dispute. 481. The City shall provide the Monitor with permanent office space and reasonable office support such as office furniture, telephones, access to internet, secure document storage, and photocopying. 482. The Monitor, at any time after its initial selection, may request to be allowed to hire or employ or contract with such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Monitor shall notifY the City and 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 City and DOJ agree to the Monitor's proposal, the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The City or DOJ have 10 business days to disagree with the proposal. If the City and DOJ are unable to reach agreement within 10 business days of receiving notice of the disagreement, the Court shall resolve the dispute.
119

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 125 of 129
483. In the event that full and effective implementation of this Agreement requires techuical assistance beyond the scope of the Monitor's duties, DOJ, NOPD, and/or the Monitor shall inform the City of the need for technical assistance and its relation to implementation of the Agreement. The Monitor, with assistance from the City, shall arrange for the prompt initiation of the required technical assistance, to be performed by the Monitor or its agent or independent contractor; the IPM; or a separate entity. The City shall set aside $100,000.00 for this purpose, and shall allocate additional funds as necessary. If either Party disagrees with the need for the technical assistance requested, the Party shall, within IS days of being informed in writing of the requested technical assistance, inform the Court, which shall resolve the dispute. 484. Should either of the Parties to this Agreement determine that the Monitor's individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors have exceeded their authority or failed to satisfactorily perform the duties required by this Agreement, the Party may petition the Court for such relief as the Court deems appropriate, including replacement of the Monitor, and/or any individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors. P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement 485. This Agreement shall become effective upon entry by the Court. 486. To ensure that the requirements of this Agreement are properly and timely implemented, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the City has achieved full and effective compliance with this Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than two years. At all times, the City and NOPD shall bear the burden of demonstrating full and effective compliance with this Agreement. DOJ acknowledges the good faith of the City in trying to address measures that are needed to promote police integrity and ensure constitutional policing in New Orleans. DOJ, however, reserves its right to seek enforcement of the provisions of this Agreement if it determines that the City has failed to fully comply with any provision of this Agreement. DOJ agrees to consult with officials from the City before instituting enforcement proceedings. 487. The City and DOJ may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement, which shall be effective, absent further action from the Court, 45 days after a joint motion has been filed with the Court. Such changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement shall be encouraged when the Parties agree, or where the reviews, assessments, and/or audits of the Monitor demonstrate, that the Agreement provision as drafted is not
120

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 126 of 129
furthering the pwpose of the Agreement, or that there is a preferable alternative that will achieve the same pwpose. Where the Parties or the Monitor are uncertain whether a change to the Agreement is advisable, the Parties may agree to suspend the current Agreement requirement for a time period agreed upon at the outset of the suspension. During this suspension, the Parties may agree to temporarily implement an alternative requirement. The Monitor shall assess whether the suspension of the requirement and the implementation of any alternative provision is as, or more, effective at achieving the pwpose as was the original/current Agreement requirement, and the Parties shall consider this assessment in determining whether to jointly stipulate to make the suggested change, modification, or amendment. 488. 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 City court, removal to a federal court shall be sought by the Parties. 489. The City and NOPD agree to promptly notifY DOJ if any term of this Agreement becomes subject to collective bargaining consultation and to consult with DOJ in a timely manner regarding the position the City and NOPD take in any collective bargaining consultation connected with this Agreement. 490. The City and NOPD agree to require compliance with this Agreement by their respective officers, employees, agencies, assigns, or successors. Q. Termination of the Agreement 491. The City and NOPD will endeavor to reach full and effective compliance with this Agreement within four years of its Effective Date. The Parties may agree to jointly ask the Court to terminate this Agreement after this date, provided that the City and NOPD have been in full and effective compliance with this Agreement for two years. "Full and Effective Compliance" shall be defined to require sustained compliance with all material requirements ofthis Agreement or sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome measures. 492. If after six years from the Effective Date, the Parties disagree whether the City has been in full and effective compliance for two years, either Party may seek to terminate this Agreement. In the case of termination sought by the City, prior to filing a motion to terminate, the City agrees to notify DOJ in writing when the City has determined that it is in full and
121

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 127 of 129 effective compliance with this Agreement and that such compliance has been maintained for no less than two years. Thereafter, the Parties shall promptly confer as to the status of compliance. If, after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any audit or evaluation that DOJ and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including on-site observations, document review, or interviews with the City and NOPD's personnel, the Parties carmot resolve any compliance issues, the City may file a motion to terminate this Agreement. If the City moves for termination of this Agreement, DOJ will have 60 days after the receipt of the City's motion to object to the motion. If DOJ does not object, the Court may grant the City's motion. If DOJ does make an objection, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and the burden shall be on the City to demonstrate that it is in full and effective compliance with this Agreement and has maintained such compliance for at least two years.
For the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General
~r~2+ Assistant Attorney General
--c:\ \ Civil Rights Division \. \ \
122

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 128 of 129
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section

Executed on this 24th day of July, 2012

RISTY . LOPEZ ( C 473 Deputy hief COREY M. SANDERS (DC 490940) EMILY A. GUNSTON (CA 218035)
Senior Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax. (202) 514-4883

123

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 129 of 129 For the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS:

HON. MITCHEl:: J .

Mayor

,/

/
"

Executed on this 24th day July, 2012

pertntendent New Orleans Police De

1~-f~-1~-,

RICHARD F. CORTIZAS

7

City Attorney

SO ORDERED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

124

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

*

Defendant

*

::I~o~ 1924 ~.
SEC_t E MAG. 2

*

*

COMPLAINT 1. The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action for
declaratory and injunctive reliefunder the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d t02000d-7 ("Title Vr'), and its implementingregnlations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112. 2. The United States brings this action to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the New Orleans Police Department (''NOPD''), an agent of the City ofNew Orleans, that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
I

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 2 of 12
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The United States is authorized to initiate this action under the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.c. § 14141, the Onmibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d , and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112. 4. Under Section 14141, the United States is authorized to bring suit against a state or local government for equitable and declaratory relief in order to remedy 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 federal law. 5. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds ofrace, color, or national origin by programs or activities receiving federal funds. 6. Defendant receives financial assistance for the NOPD within the meaning of Title VI. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The United States has advised Defendant of its violations of Title VI, has made concerted efforts to secure voluntary compliance from Defendant, and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means without court ordered remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l. 7. The Safe Streets Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex by programs or activities receiving federal funds granted under the Safe Streets Act. 8. Defendant receives funds made available under the Safe Streets Act for NOPD programs or activities. 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 3 of 12
10. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant is located in the Eastern District Louisiana, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
II. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(3). II. PARTIES
12. Plaintiff is the United States of America. 13. Defendant City of New Orleans is a municipality and a political subdivision ofthe State of
Louisiana located in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Defendant is organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, and operates under a Home Rule Charter. NOPD is a law enforcement agency operated by the City of New Orleans and is located within the executive branch ofNew Orleans's government.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. The United States, pursuant to an extensive investigation of the New Orleans Police
Department, has determined that Defendant and its agents, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of excessive force, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and discriminatory policing. Further, the United States has found that these acts and omissions include, but are not limited to: failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline officers, and failure to establish consistent policies, procedures, and practices that appropriately guide, monitor, and manage the actions ofNOPD officers and NOPD's response to those actions. 15. The United States' investigation included on- and off-site review of a wide array of over 36,000 pages of documents, including policies and procedures, training materials, incident
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 4 of 12
reports, use of force reports, crime investigation files, data collected by NOPD, complaints of misconduct, and misconduct investigations. The investigation further included hundreds of hours of on-site observations by Department of Justice representatives and retained police experts, including participation in ride-alongs with officers and supervisors, attendance at NOPD COMSTAT meetings, and related observations of police activity. The review of documents and the on-site observations consistently revealed and confmned a broad pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct by NOPD officers. 16. The United States' investigation further included participation in over 40 community meetings, including meetings held at the request of the United States, as well as regularly scheduled community meetings, including New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council and Rape Crisis Network meetings, among many others. The Department ofJustice and its experts met also with representatives ofNOPD police fraternal organizations and participated in several "round tables" to elicit officer concerns and ideas about how to improve services provided by NOPD. The investigation further included meetings with judges from the state and municipal courts and members of the District Attorney's Office, the Orleans Public Defender, the Civil Service Commission, the Office ofthe Independent Police Monitor, the City Council, Louisiana State legislators, the Business Council of New Orleans & the River Region, the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, and the New Orleans Crime Coalition. Through these meetings, interviews, and conversations, the United States further uncovered the patterns or practices of unlawful conduct by NOPD officers, and the acts or omissions by Defendant and Defendant's agents that caused these patterns or practices of unlawful conduct.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 5 of 12
17. The United States' findings that NOPD officers engaged in a pattern or practice ofnnlawful conduct are outlined in its 158-page March 16,2011 report ("Report"), attached and incorporated herein by reference.
18. A pattern or practice of unlawful conduct has been further demonstrated by the convictions of numerous NOPD officers for criminal civil rights violations and other significant criminal misconduct committed, in many instances, while on duty. The most significant of these criminal convictions involve conduct that occurred prior to the change in City and NOPD leadership in 2010. Nonetheless, this history of criminal conduct by NOPD officers dates back many years and includes convictions, not only for committing, but also for covering up criminal acts, including criminal acts causing death. The number and nature ofcriminal convictions thus makes clear the need for federal oversight to ensure that the City's current reform efforts are successful at correcting the pattern or practice of unlawful police misconduct.
19. Defendant and its agents, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable force against persons in New Orleans. As outlined in the Report, incidents of unreasonable force include the use of unreasonable force against restrained individuals; the use of retaliatory force; the unreasonable use of electronic control devices against individuals; the use of unreasonable force in canine apprehensions of suspects; the use of unreasonable force against persons in mental health crisis; and the unreasonable use of firearms and other deadly force against individuals.
20. Defendant and its agents, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of unlawfully stopping, searching, and arresting persons in New Orleans. As outlined in the Report, NOPD officers engage in a pattern or practice of detaining persons without
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 6 of 12
reasonable suspicion; searching persons without legal authority; and arresting persons without probable cause. A significant portion of the arrest and investigative reports reviewed reflected apparent constitutional violations by NOPD officers, consistent with the findings of a previous DOJ investigation ten years prior. NOPD's organizational focus on arrest statistics, alongside insufficient training, supervision, and problem-oriented policing strategies to address and abate crime, is evidence that these unlawful detentions, searches, and arrests are neither isolated nor aberrational, but rather reflect a Department-wide pattern and practice of searches and seizures in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment. 21. Defendant and its agents, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing by NOPD officers. As outlined in the Report, NOPD officers engage in discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, national origin, and sexual orientation. Discriminatory Policing by NOPD takes the form of selective law enforcement based on protected status. TIris discriminatory policing includes, but is not limited to: failing to investigate adequately, on the basis of gender, incidents of sexual assault and domestic violence; failing to provide police services to persons with limited English proficiency; and disparate treatment oftransgender individuals. 22. Defendant and its agents, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing by NOPD officers on the basis of race or color as set forth in the Report. 23. The patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct set out above are caused by pervasive deficiencies in Defendant's systems for directing, training, supervising, and holding accountable NOPD officers. These deficient systems demonstrate the City ofNew
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 7 of 12
Orleans's deliberate indifference to the patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct committed by NOPD officers. 24. As set out more fully in the Report, Defendant's systemic deficiencies include: failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices regarding the use of force; stops, searches, and arrests; and discriminatory policing, to appropriately guide and monitor the actions of individual NOPD officers; failing to evaluate, document, and investigate adequately incidents in which an NOPD officer uses force, including the types of force specifically set out in paragraph 19; failing to establish and implement an adequate policy for receiving and investigating internal and external complaints of officer misconduct; failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices that address appropriately the imposition of discipline or corrective action; failing to discipline adequately or impose corrective action upon NOPD officers who engage in misconduct; failing to implement adequate policies, procedures, and practices regarding supervision ofNOPD officers; failing to supervise NOPD officers adequately to prevent the use of unreasonable force; unlawful stops, searches, or arrests; and discriminatory policing; failing to train NOPD officers adequately to prevent the use of unreasonable force, including the types of force specifically set out in paragraph 19; unlawful stops, searches, and arrests; and discriminatory policing; failing to track, analyze, and respond to data and trends regarding use of force; stops searches, or arrest; and allegations of misconduct by NOPD officers; failing to acknowledge adequately the potential for stereotypes and biases to influence police decision making and prevention of same through policies, leadership, supervision, and training; failing to develop a language assistance plan; failing to adequately evaluate, document, and investigate incidents of sexual assault and domestic violence; failing to take adequate steps to recruit a sufficient number
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 8 of 12
and quality of officer candidates; failing to implement adequate policies, procedures and practices related to NOPD's paid detail system; failing to implement an adequate performance evaluation and promotion system; failing to implement an effective community oriented policing program; failing to provide critical officer assistance and support services to NOPD officers; failing to have adequate policies, procedures, and practices related to custodial interrogations and photographic lineups; and failing to implement an adequate mechanism for civilian oversight of the NOPD. 25. Over the past three years, the Department of Justice has provided over eight million dollars ($8,282,713), including funds made available under the Safe Streets Act, directly to the New Orleans Police Department or to the City of New Orleans for police services. 26. Title VI and its implementing regulations prohibit intentional discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any ofa grant recipient's or sub-recipient's operations, and they prohibit methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment ofthe objectives ofthe grant recipient's or sub-recipient's operations as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national ongm. 27. As a condition of receiving some or all of these funds, Defendant or its agents signed contractual assurances and agreed to abide by the requirements of federal law, including the requirements of Title VI and the Safe Streets Act. 28. Through its March 16, 2011 Report and other means, the United States advised Defendant that NOPD practices violate Title VI and its implementing regulations.
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 9 of 12
IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT VIOLATES THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT AND SECTION 14141 29. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28
above. 30. NOPD's law enforcement practices result in stops, detentions, searches, arrests, and/or uses
offorce against persons in New Orleans without lawful justification. 31. Defendant's actions constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers
that deprives persons of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, in violation of Section 14141.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SECTION 14141
32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28 above.
33. NOPD engages in law enforcement practices that intentionally discriminate against persons in New Orleans on the basis of their race, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation.
34. Defendant's actions constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, in violation of Section 14141. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT VIOLATES TITLE VI.
35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28 above.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 10 of 12

36. Defendant and its agents have received and continue to receive federal financial assistance

for its programs and activities.

37. Defendant and its agents engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that is unjustified and

has had an adverse disparate impact on the basis of protected status covered by Title VI.

38. Defendant and its agents engage in a pattern or practice of intentional discriminatory

conduct on the basis of protected class covered by Title VI.

39. The discriminatory pattern or practice of conduct by Defendant and its agents, and

intentional discrimination, independently violate Title VI and its implementing regulations.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT VIOLATES THE SAFE STREETS ACT

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28

above.

41. Defendant and its agents have received and continue to receive federal financial assistance

granted under the Safe Streets Act for its programs or activities.

42. Defendant and its agents engage in a pattern or practice of unjustified conduct that has had

an adverse disparate impact on the basis of protected status covered by the Safe Streets Act.

43. Defendant and its agents engage in a pattern or practice of intentionally discriminatory

conduct on the basis of protected class covered by the Safe Streets Act.

44. The discriminatory pattern or practice of conduct by Defendant and its agents, and

intentional discrimination, independently violate the Safe Streets Act and its implementing

regulations.

v. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

45. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:

10

- - - - - ... _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 11 of 12
46. declare that Defendant and its agents have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct by NOPD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States;
47. enjoin Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice of conduct;
48. order Defendant and its agents to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of unlawful conduct described herein, and to prevent NOPD officers from depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States;
49. declare that Defendant and its agents have excluded persons from participation in, denied persons the benefits of, or subjected persons to discrimination under programs or activities receiving federal fmancial assistance, on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of Title VI;
50. declare that Defendant and its agents have excluded persons from participation in, denied persons the benefits of, or subjected persons to discrimination under programs or activities funded in whole in part with funds granted under the Safe Streets Act, on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in violation of the Safe Streets Act;
51. enjoin Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees from engaging in any of the discriminatory acts forming the Title VI violations, and order Defendant to take such remedial action as will eliminate such discrimination;
52. enjoin Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees from engaging in any of the discriminatory acts forming the Safe Streets Act violations, and order Defendant to take such remedial action as will eliminate such discrimination; and
11

- ------------------------------ ---------------
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 12 of 12
53. order such other appropriate relief as the interests ofjustice may require. Respectfully submitted,
Qc.~.
THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
. ( 211491) Deputy Assistant l\ttJorrliey General Civil Rights Division JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC 473612) Deputy Chief COREY M. SANDERS (DC 490940) Trial Attorney
2'~(T.A.) (CA2I'035) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255; Fax. (202) 514-4883 Email: Emily.Gunston@usdoj.gov
12

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Motions to Intervene filed by the Crescent City Lodge No. 2,

Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. and Walter Po wers, Jr. in his official capaci ty as Acting

President of FOP (the “FOP”) ; Walter Powers, Jr. in his individual capacity (“Powers”);1

Community United for Change (“CUC”); 2 the Police Association of New Orleans and

Michael Glasser in his official capacity as President of PANO (“PANO”); Michael Glasser

in his individual capacity (“Glasser”); 3 the Office of the Independent Police Monitor

(“OIPM”) and Susan Hutson in her official capacity as Independent Police Monitor for the

City of New Orleans (“IPM”); and Susan Hutson in her individual capacity (“Hutson”).4

Background

The Complaint in the above case was br ought by the United States of America

(“United States”) against the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the “City”), under the

provisions of the Violent Cr ime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141

(“Section 14141”); the Omnibus Cri me Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §

1 R. Doc. 9. 2 R. Doc. 11. 3 R. Doc. 13. 4 R. Doc. 15.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 25
3789d (the “Safe Streets Act”); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7, and its implementing regulatoi ns, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112 (“Title VI”), in order to remedy an alleged pattern or pr actice of conduct by the New Orleans Police Department (the “NOPD”) that subjects indivi duals to excessive force in vio lation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Ti tle VI. The proposed Consent Decree contains detailed provisions concerning changes in NOPD policies and prac tices related to: (1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) performance evalua tions and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) the secondary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13) misconduct complaintintake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and ove rsight. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree includes detailed provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree.
On July 31, 2012, this Court entered an order requiring any person wishing to seek intervention in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to file a contradictory motion to intervene no later than August 7,2012, and any party opposing any motion(s) to intervene to file an opposition to the motion(s) no later than August 14, 2012. On August 6, 2012, FOP and Powers filed a motion to intervene. On August 7, 2012, CUC, PANO and Glasser, and OIPM, IPM and Hutson filed their motions to intervene.On August 14, 2012, the City and the United States filed memoranda in opposition to the motions to intervene5.
5 R. Docs. 26 (City’s opposition) and 27 (United States’ opposition).
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 25
The Court heard oral argument on all four motions to intervene on August 20, 2012.
I. Intervention under Rule 24 A. Intervention of Right To intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), four
requirements must be met: (1) the application for interven tion must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subjectof the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect tha t interest; [and] (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.
New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1019 (1984). If a party seeking to intervene fails to meet any one of those requirements, it cannot intervene as a matter of right. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Kneeland v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletics Ass’n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1287 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817 (1987)).
With respect to the requirement that the party seeking to intervene as of right be sufficiently interested, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) has underscored that “[n]ot any interest, however, is sufficient.” Saldano v. Roach, 363 F.3d 545, 551 (2004). Rather, intervention of ri ght requires an interest that is “ ‘direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable.’ ” Id. (quoting Doe v. Glickman, 256 F.3d 371, 379 (2001)). For such an interest to be “legally pr otectable,” it must “be one which the substantive law recognizes as belonging to or being owned by the applicant.” United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 464. The claim asserted bythe applicant must be one as to which
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 4 of 25
the applicant is the real party in interest. Id. Furthermore, a proposed intervenor has theburden of establishing that the existing
parties to the lawsuit inadequately represent the applicant’s i nterests. See Hopwood v. Texas, 21 F.3d 603, 605 (5t h Cir. 1994); Espy, 18 F.3d at 1207. This inadequate representation requirement is satisfied “if the applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10, 92 S.Ct. 630, 636 n.10 (1972). Nevertheless, “[a]lthough the applicant’s burden of showing inadequate representation is minimal, ‘it cannot be treated as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule.’ ”Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1005 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Cajun Elec. Power Coop., 940 F.2d at 120).
The Fifth Cir cuit recognizes two presumptions of adequate representation. See Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005. First, in a suit involving a matter of sovereign interest, the governmental entity is presumed to represent the interests of all of its citizens. Id. (citing Hopwood, 21 F.3d at 605. This presumption of adequate representation arises whether the would-be intervenor is a citizen or subdivision of the governmental entity.Id. To overcome this presumption, the applicant must show “thatits interest is in fact different from that of the [governmental entity] and that the interest will not be represented by [it].” Id. (citing Hopwood, 21 F.3d at 605) (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Higginson, 631 F.2d 738, 740 (D.C.Cir. 1979)). This presumption, and the heightened showing required to overcome it, is restricted to la wsuits involving matters of sovereign interest. Id. at 1005. Where the governmental entity appears i n its capacity as an employer and not in its capacity as a sovereign, however, this presumption is inapplicable. Id.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 5 of 25
The second presumption of adequate repr esentation arises when the would-be intervenor has the same ultimate objective as a party to the lawsuit. Id.; see Kneeland v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1288 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817, 108 S.Ct. 72 (1987). In such cases, the applicant for intervention must show adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance on the pa rt of the existing party to overcome the presumption. If neither presumption applies, the court reverts to thede minimis standard of proof required by Trbovich to establish inadequate representation.
B. Permissive Intervention Rule 24 provides for permissive intervention under subdivision (b). 6 As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, permissive intervention “is wholly discretionary with the [district] court . . . even thou gh there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied.” United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 470-71 (quoting 7C C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Parctice and Procedure § 1913, at 376-77 (2d ed. 1986)). “In acting on a request for permissiveintervention the district court may consider, among other factors, whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties . . . and whether intervention will undluy delay the proceedings or prejudice existing parties.” Kneeland, 806 F.2d at 1289 (citingUnited Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 472 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)).
6 Rule 24(b) provides, in pertinent part: (b) Permissive Intervention. (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that sha res with the main action a common question of law or fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1).
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 6 of 25
II. The Motions to Intervene A. OIPM’s Motion to Intervene OIPM’s motion to i ntervene, filed on Augu st 7, 2012, was filed on behalf of the
OIPM, the IPM and Susan Hutson in her offici al capacity as IPM for the City, seeking intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or, in the alternative, permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). Hutson in her official capacity is, in effect, the OIPM and the Co urt will consider those arguments in tandem. Kercher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 78 (1987) (“[T]he real party in interest in an official capacity suit is the entity represented and not the individual office holder.”). Hutson has also sought to intervene in her individualcapacity. The Court will consider Hutson’s motion regarding her individual capacity separately.
Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that “capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined . . . by the law of the state in which the district court is held.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). If a proposed intervenor lacks legal capacity to sue or be sued under state law, intervention is not permissible. See, e.g., Biance v. Lemieux, No. 11-429, 2012 WL 1466517 (D. Me. Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to intervene on grounds that the proposed intervenor, an LLC that had beendissolved and cancelled under New Hampshire law, lacked capacity to sue);compare Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Caroll, No. 12-7, 2012 WL 2466968 (N.D.W.Va. Jun. 27, 2012) (granting motion to intervene under Rule 24(b) only after holding that the proposed intervenor possessed legal capacity under W est Virginia law). Therefore, the Court must determine, as an initial matter, whetheOrIPM has the legal capacity to sue or be sued under Louisiana lawsuch that it is capable of intervening in this action.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 7 of 25
Under Louisiana law, an entity must qual ify as a “natural person” or a “juri dical
person” to possess the capacity to sue or be sued.See, e.g., Dugas v. City of Breaux Bridge
Police Dep’t, 99-1320 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/2/00); 757 So.2d 741, 743. It is clear that OIPM is
not a natural person. Nor is Hutson when acting in her official capacity as IPM. Kercher,
484 U.S. at 78. A juridical person is “an entiy to which the law attributes personality, such
as a corporation or partnership.” La. Civ. Code. Ann. art. 24. Comment (d) to article 24
also provides that “the capacity of a juridical preson is governed by provisions in its charter,
governing legislation, and customs.” La. Civ. Code. Ann. art. 24, cmt. (d). “[I]n the absence
of law providing that an entity may sue orbe sued, the entity lacks such capacity.”Dantzler
v. Pope, No. 08-3777, 2009 WL 959508, at *1 (E.D.La. Apr. 3, 2009) (Africk, J.) (citingCity
Council of Lafayette v. Bowen, 94-584 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94); 649 So.2d 611).
In Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans,the Louisiana Supreme Court
set forth the framework for determining whether an entity qualifies as a juridical person
and, as a result, has the capacity to sue and be sued:
The important determination with respect to the jur idical status or legal capacity of an enti ty is not its creator, nor its size, shape, or label. Rather the determi nation that must be made in each particular case is whether the entity can appropriately be regarded as an additional and se parate government unit for the particular purpose at issue. In the absence of positive law to thecontrary, a local government unit may be deemed to be a juridica l person separate and distinct from other government entities,when the organic law grants it the legal capacity to function independently and not just as the agency or division of another governmental entity.
92-2048 (La. 3/21/94); 634 So.2d 341, 346. Where there is no constitutional or statutory
authority for the entity to sue or be sued, that entity is without capacity to be sued under
the Roberts analysis. Green v. District Attorney Office, No. 08-3685, 2009 WL 651132, at
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 8 of 25
*4 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2009) (Feldman, J.) (citing Bowen, 649 So.2d at 613-16).
OIPM asserts that, although it is part of the City by virtue of its position within the
Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), OIPM, and by extension the IPM, is operationally
independent from the legislative and executive branches of City government. OIPM further
asserts that it is “functionally independent” from the OIG because, while it is classified as
a division of the OIG, it does not report to the OIG. Rather, OIPM argues, it reports to a
City Council committee, and the OIG does not hvae authority to remove the IPM from office or otherwise “oversee or impact” the work of the IPM.7 Thus, OIPM asserts, it has juridical capacity necessary to intervene under Louisiana law.8
It is uncontested that OIPM is a division of a City agency – the OIG. A 2008
amendment to the Home Rule Charter of th e City of New Orleans created the OIG a nd
provided that the OIG was to establish an Independent Police Monitor division within the OIG.9 Subsequently, the OIPM was created by Ctiy ordinance as a division within the OIG.
The City Code provides that OIG, not OIPM , is “operationally independent” from the
7 R. Doc. 38 at p. 3 (citing New Orleans City Code, sec. 2-1120(3)-(20)). 8 R. Doc. 38 at p. 1-3. 9 Home Rule Charter, Article IX, Sec. 9-401 (Office of Inspector General) states, in pertinent part:
(1) The Council shall by ordinance create an Office of Inspector General (OIG) and otherwise provide with respect thereto. (2) The OIG shall pr ovide for a full-time program of investigation, audit, inspections, and performance review toprovide increased accountability and oversight of entities of city government or entities receiving funds through the city, and to assist in improving agency operations and deterri ng and identifying, fraud, waste, abuse, and il legal acts. The OIG is specifical ly authorized to conduct audits of Cityentities. The OIG shall also provide for an Independent Police Monitor Division, charged with monitoring the operations of the New Orleans Police Department, particularly in the areas of civilian and internal ly-generated complaints, internal investigations, discipline, significant uses of force, and in-custody deaths . . . .
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 9 of 25
legislative and executive branches of city government1.0 Nothing in the City Code or Home
Rule Charter provides that OIPM has the capacity to sue or be sued. Nothing in the City
Code or Home Rule Charter provides that OIPM is “operationally independent.”
OIPM is housed by the City as part of the OIG.11 OIPM is funded by the City as a
subset of the fund ing allocated to the OIG. 12 The IPM reports to the criminal justice
committee of the City Council1.3 The IPM may be removed by tehCity’s ethics review board,
whose members are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council.14 OIPM is
10 R. Doc. 15-1 at p. 11 (citing City Code, sec2. -1120, par. 6(b)); R. Doc. 38 at pp. 1-3 (citing City Code, sec. 2-1120). Section 2-1120(6)(b) provides that the OIG is “operationally independent” from oth er City agencies:
(a) The office of inspector general is “operationally independent” from the legislative and executive branches of the city, including the Council of the City of New Orl eans, and the office of the mayor, but is authorized and encouraged to work cooperativel y with the ethics review b oard. “Operationally independent” shall be defined as follows: “not preventing, impairing, or prohibiting the inspector general from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit, investigation, inspection or performance review.”
11 See City Code, sec. 2-1120(14) (“Physicalfacilities. [T]he cityshall provide the . . . office of inspector general with appropriately located office space, which shall be located in close proximity, but off site from city hall. The city shall also provide the ethics review board and the office ofinspector general with sufficient and necessary equipment, office supplies, and office furnishings to enable the ethics review board and the office of inspector general to perform their functions and duties.”)
12 See Home Rule Charter, Article IX, Sec. 9-401 (Offi ce of Inspector General) (“(3) The OIG, in conjunction with the Ethics Review Board, shall receive an annual appropriation from the Council in an amount not less than .75% (three-quarters of one perc ent) of the General Fund operating bud get, adopted pursuant to Section 3-115(2), which individual appropriation may not bevetoed by the Mayor . . . .”). See also 2012 Annual Operating Budget, City o f New Orl eans, available at: http://www.nola.gov/HOME/Mayors-Office/City-of-New-Orleans-Budget/, at p. 419 (showing the total funding allocated to OIPM for personal services and other operating expenses for 2012);p. 420 (showing the funding allocated to the OIG in 2010, 2011, and 2012); and p. 421 (listing the Independent Police Monitor, Deputy Police Monitor, and Executive Director of Community Relations for the Police Monitor as personnel of the OIG, along with their City pay grades).
13City Code, sec. 2-1121(16).
14 City Code, sec. 2-1121(20) (“Removal ofindependent police monitor from office. Theindependent monitor shall only be removed based on the recommend ation of the inspector general and approved by a majority vote of the ethics review board.”); City Code, sec. 2-719 (establishing the ethics review board, with appointments by the Mayor with approval by the City Council).
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 10 of 25
“independent” mainly in the sense that th e IPM cannot be removed by the Mayor, who appoints the Chief of Police. However, the IPM may be removed by the ethics review board created by the City. The OIPM division of OIG is not a juridical person separate and distinct from other government entities. Ne ither the law nor custom attributes juridical personality to the OIPM. For all of the se reasons, using the Roberts analysis, the Court finds that the OIPM lacks juridical capacity to sue or be sued and thus lacks capacity to intervene as of right or pursuant to this Court’s discretion.
Notwithstanding the fact that OIPM does not have the capacity to sue and thus cannot intervene in this case , the City cannot use the proposed Consent Decree to avoid compliance with the ordinance creating OI PM, for example, by changing the budget allocated to OIPM.15 The Court does not assume that the City is attempting to do so. In fact, the proposed Consent Decree specifically provides that entry of the Consent Decree will in no way diminish the authority of OIPM, and the entire Memorandum of Understanding between OIPM and the NOPD is incorporated into the proposed Consent
15 Indeed, the City and the United States have alre ady agreed to four changes cl arifying that the proposed Consent Decree is not intended to avoid complai nce with the ordinance. At oralargument, counsel for the Department of Justice and the City represented that they have agreed to make the following changes to the proposed Consent Decree:
(1) Paragraph 426: Change “The PIB and IPM shall coordinate and confer . . .” to “the PIB and IPM should coordinate and confer . . .”. (2) Paragraph 443: Change “The IPMwill coordinate with the Monitor and the NOPD. . .” to “The IPMmay coordinate with the Monitor and the NOPD . . .”. (3) Paragraph 454: Change “The Monitor may coordinate with the IPM . . .” to “The Monitor shall coordinate with the IPM . . . ”. (4) Paragraph 459: Change “The Monitor may coordinate and confer with the IPM . . . ” to “The Monitor shall coordinate and confer with the IPM . . . ”.
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 11 of 25
Decree.16 Further, the United States has stated that, had the OIPM “not already been in existence in New Orleans, it would have insistedthat such an office be created because long term civilian oversight is critical to ensuring constitutional policing.”17
Hutson, individually, has legal capacity. However, she has not provided the Court with argument regarding her individual in terest and how a ny such interest would be impaired as a result of the proposed Consent Decree. Consequently, Hutson has not met the requirements to intervene as of right or pursuant to the Court’s discretion.
B. CUC’s Motion to Intervene CUC filed its motion to intervene August 7, 2012. CUC is “a non-profit association of people in New Orleans who have done admriable work for decades to transform the New Orleans Police Department [NOPD] into a consittutional policing department that respects the rights of all residents.”18 CUC claims that it meets the requirements for intervention as of right because: (1) its motion was timely filed in accordance with the Court’s order of July 31, 2012; (2) it has a demonstrated interest in transformation of the NOPD based on decades of work by its members and work on the Consent Decree process;(3) disposition of this case through the proposed Consent Decree without CUC’s involvement would impede the ability of CUC and citizens to protect their interests; and (4) there is no existing party which adequately represents the interests of “the people who are the primary victims of the culture and
16 R. Doc. 2-1 at pars. 440, 442. 17 R. Doc. 23 at p. 13. The Court recognizes that the OIPM does not represent community groups in a legal sense. 18 R. Doc. 11 at p. 1; R. Doc. 33at p. 1. The Court notes that under Louisiana law “[a]n unincorporated association, in its name, may institute, defend, intervene, or participate in a judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding.” La. Rev. Stat. § 12:507(A).
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 12 of 25
corruption pointed out by DOJ.”19 With respect to intervention as of right, fri st, there is no dispute as to the timeliness
of CUC’s motion to intervene. With respectto the “interest” requirement, CUC asserts that it has such an interest by virtue of its decadeosf work on police reformin New Orleans. The Court certainly recognizes and appreciates the work that CUC has done and acknowledges that CUC is interested in the resolution of thiscase. Nonetheless, CUChas failed to cite any – and the Court is not aware ofany – “legally protectable interest” in the subject matter of this litigation that the substantive law recog nizes as belonging to or owned by CUC. See United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 463. For example, CUC has not cited any contractual rights or property rights of its members that may be impaired by the disposition of this action. Because a party cannot intervene if it fails to fulfill any one requirement fo r intervention as of right, Espy, 18 F.3d at 1205, the CUC is notentitled to intervention as of right.
Moreover, even if CUC did have a legally protectable interest related to the subject matter of this litigation, the Court finds thatCUC’s interests are not, as a practical matter, impaired by this litigation. The proposedConsent Decree does not prevent CUC, any other community organization, or any individual community member, from initiating suit against NOPD officers who engage in unconstitutional practices. Nor does the proposed Consent Decree prevent CUC, any other community organization, or any community members, from continuing to work on police reform. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at 402 (likewise holding that the interests of numerous community groups and individuals were not impaired by the litigation involving a consent decree between the City of Los Angeles
19 R. Doc. 11-1 at p. 4 and R. Doc. 33 at p. 2.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 13 of 25
and the Department of Justice to reform the Los Angeles Police Department)2.0 As a result,
the CUC does not meet the “practical impairment” requirement for intervention as of right.
In the alternative, t he CUC has sought pe rmissive intervention pursuant to Rule
24(b). As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, permissive intervention “is wholly discretionary”
with the district court. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 470-71. “In acting on a
request for permissive intervention the district court may consider, among other factors,
whether the intervenors’ i nterests are adequa tely represented by other parties . . . and
whether intervention will unduly delay the pr oceedings or prejudice existing parties.”
Kneeland, 806 F.2d at 1289. In this case, the Court finds that permissive intervention by
CUC is not appropriate because it will unduly delay these proceedings and prejudice the
existing parties while not offering significant assistance to the Court.
C. FOP and PANO’s Motions to Intervene
FOP and PANO (the “Police Associations”)21 filed motions to intervene on August 6
and 7, 2012, respectively, on their own behalvesand on behalf of their members. FOP and
PANO are nonprofit corporations organized un der the laws of the State of Louisiana to
20 In City of Los Angeles, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) remanded the matter with respect to the Community Intervenors’ motion to intervene permissively because the district court did not “conduct the proper analysis in determining permissive intervention.” City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at 403. On remand, the district court grantedthe Community Intervenors’ renewed motion to intervene permissively but “concede[d] to being skeptical that the promised benefits to bederived from the [Community Intervenors’] participation [would] materialize.” No. 00-11769 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2002), R. Doc. 193 at p. 2. The district court further cautioned that “if the participation of the [Community Intervenors] should prove counter-productive . . . then the Court will not hesitate to consider vacating [its Order granting intervention] and terminating the intervention of [the Community Intervenors].” Id.
This Court is not convinced that CUC’s intervention inthis case is appropriate. Consequently, as set forth in this Order, the Court also denies CUC’s motion in the alternative to intervene permissively.
21 Powers and Glasser seek to intervene in their official capacities as acting president and president of FOP and PANO, respectively. As Pwo ers and Glasser’s interests in theirofficial capacities do not differ from those of FOP and PANO, the Court’s discussion regarding the “Police Associations” addresses arguments they assert in their official capacities.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 14 of 25
represent the interests of NOPD officers2.2 These organizations advocate for thier members’ interests in various situations, including employment disputes, civil service appeals, and civil and criminal litigation.23 Neither association has a collective bargaining agreement with the City.24 Because the issues raisedin both motions are sufficiently similar, the Court analyzes them together. The Police Associations both seek intervention as of right, or, in the alternative, permissive intervention. Powers and Glasser, sworn NOPD officers, also seek to intervene in their individual capacities. The Courtwill address Powers and Glasser separately from the Police Associations.25
With respect to the first requirement for intervention as of right, there is no dispute as to the timeliness of the Police Association’s motions to intervene. With respect to the “interest” requirement, the Police Associatio ns assert that, because the me mbers of the NOPD are protected by Civil Service unde r Article X, Section 8 of the Louisiana Constitution, they have a propertyright in their employment thatis sufficient to satisfy the “substantial and legally protectable interest” requirement for intervention.26 The Police Associations further assert that, as associations,they have standing to sue on behalf of their members.27 In addition, FOP asserts that the NOPD officers have an interest sufficient to support intervention because the proposed Consent Decree is binding on the NOPD officers
22 See R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 2; R. Doc. 13-1 at p. 3. 23 R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 2; R. Doc. 13-1 at p. 3. 24 See R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 2; R. Doc. 27 at p. 10. 25 See pp. 22-23, infra. 26 See R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 6; R. Doc. 13-1 at p. 5. 27 R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 7; R. Doc. 13-1 at pp. 5-6 (each citing Central and South West Serv., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 220 F.3d 683, 698 (5th Cir. 2008)).
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 15 of 25
as employees and because the mandates set forth in the proposed Consent Decree directly affect the officers.28
The Police Associations are correct that their NOPD officer members, by virtue of their status as civil servants, have a property interest in their jobs. See Wallace v. Shreve Memorial Library, 79 F.3d 427, 431 (5th Cir. 1996); Moore v. Ware, 839 So.2d 940 (La. 2003); Bell v. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 483 So. 2d 945, 949-950 (La. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 827, 107 S. Ct. 105,(1986). Nnoetheless, the Court does not agree that the NOPD officer members – and thus the PolicAe ssociations – have the legally protectable interest in the subject matter of this litigation required for intervention as of right.
The Police Associations citeEdwards v. City of Houston,78 F.3d 983, 999 (5th Cir. 1996) in support of their argument that theNOPD officers, as Civil Service employees, may intervene to protect their vested interests.Although FOP acknowledges that the E“ dwards Court did not d irectly address the issue of ci vil service property rights as a basis for intervention,”29 it urges the Court to readEdwards as authorizing the Police Associations’ intervention under an impairment of property rights theory. FOP argues that “the police officers who sought intervention were civil servants and . . . the proposed consent decree in Edwards . . . superseded some applicable provision of the Texas and Police Civil Service Act.”30 However, the Edwards Court did not permit the appellants to intervene under an impairment of property rights theory, but instead because of the preclusive effects of Title
28 R. Doc. 9-2 at p. 7. 29 R. Doc. 40 at p. 3. 30 R. Doc. 40 at p. 3.
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 16 of 25
VII. Edwards is inapplicable given the facts of this action.
The consent decree at issue in Edwards resolved a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit filed against the City of Houston, Texas, regarding racailly-based job promotions within the Houston Police Depa rtment (“HPD”). In order to remedy past discrimination by the HPD against its own em ployees, the original parties to the lawsui t proposed that a specific number of promotions would be guaranteed to African-American and Hispanic-American officers. Organizati ons representing officers who were not members of those minority groups moved tointervene. The would-be intervenors argued that such a plan guarante eing promotions to officers of certain minority groups denied other officers the ability to advance within the HPD. The organizations argued that officers wishing to intervene had a constitutional righ t to a promotion system that wa s “without reference to race, color, or national origin.” Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1004. The district court denied the motions to intervene and the would-be intervenorsappealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and allowed the organizations to intervene, citing the preclusive effect of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)31 that would prohibit the non-party officers – if they were
31 At the time the Fifth Circuit was considering Edwards, the relevant portion of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(n) stated:
(1)(A) Notwithstanding any o ther provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves a clai m of employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal ci vil rights laws may not be challenged under the circumstances described in subparagraph (B). (B) A practice described in subparagraph(A) may not be challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws –
(I) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order described in subparagraph (A), had –
(I) actual notice of the proposed judgmentor order sufficient to apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was available to present objections to such
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 17 of 25
not allowed to intervene – from collaterally challenging the consent decree after the district court approved it.32 Because Section 2000e-2(n) precluded the would-be intervenors from
filing any future lawsuit to contest allege dly discriminatory employment practices
perpetrated against them, the Fifth Circuit found that such practices would “become
unassailable by these applicants and their privies.” Id. at 1002.
The Edwards consent decree resolved complaints of employment di scrimination
against police department employees under Titl e VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42
U.S.C. § 2000e). The notice provision set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)(1) only applies
to consent decrees brought under Title VII (“[A]n employment practice that implements
and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves a claim of
employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws may not be
challenged . . . . .”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)(1)(A). The complaint seeking entry of the
proposed NOPD Consent Decree is brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
judgment or order by a future date certain; and (II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such judgment or order; or (ii) by a person whose interests were adequa tely represented by another person who had previously challenged the judgment or order on the same legal grounds and with a similar factual situation, unless there has been an intervening change in law or fact. Edwards, 78 F.3d at 996 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)(1)) (emphasis added). 32 The Fifth Circuit inEdwards provides an extensive overview of the legislative and jurisprudential history of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n). See Edwards, 78 F.3d at 995-99. In essence, Congress enacted subsection (n) because “ ‘[o]nce an employment dispute has reachedthe courts, the parties, all nonlitigants with a stake in the o utcome, and the pu blic have a stro ng interest in bringing the liti gation to an expeditious end. [Accordingly], all related interests and claims should be adjudicated in one proceeding.’ ” Id. at 997 (quoting H.R.Rep. part 1 at 53, reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 591) (emphasis and alterations in original). Subsection (n) provides non-parties notice of, and an opportunity to be heard at, a fairness hearing regarding the type of consent decree at issue in Edwards. However, subsection (n) further prohibits nonparties from filing “a new,independent lawsuit challenging the implementation of a court-approved consent decree.” Id. at 998. Congress specifically drafted subsection (n) “to preclude such successive litigation.” Id.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 18 of 25
(regarding discrimination by government ag encies receiving federal funds; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7), as well as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. § 14141) and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3789d). These statutes do not c ontain any preclusive language analogous to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)(1). Moreover, the proposed Consent Decree does not remedy complaints about the NOPD discriminating against its own employees in violation of Title VII, and the Police Associations do not seek to challenge an y alleged incidents of Title VII employment discrimination. Instead, the complai nts to be remedied are Title VI non-employment claims having to do with the NOPD’s practices with respect to citizens. Edwards is inapposite to this case. Consequently, it provides no authority for the Police Associations to intervene.
The Court recognizes that the proposed Consent Decree does reference the Civil Service system, and, as discussed above, that officers do have a property right in their employment. Nevertheless, as it is currently written, the proposed Consent Decree in no way modifies the Civil Service system for NO PD officers. The proposed Consent Decree provides that (1) NOPD “agrees to work with Civil Service” to develop an NOPD-specific system for performance evaluations and new promotions practices that comport with best practices and the proposed Consent Decree;33 (2) NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program; and (3) the City shall restructure the NOPD’s secondaryemployment system and that only officers having attained certain Civil Service desi gnations may work secondary employment. 34
33 See R. Doc. 2-1, pars. 295-305. 34 See id., Section IX.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 19 of 25
However, the Police Associations have not indicated how these provisions of the proposed Consent Decree would impact or impair any oftheir property rights guaranteed under the Civil Service system, and the Court does not readthese references as impacting or impaiirng such rights.
At oral argument the Court requested a dditional briefing from the City and the United States to address this issue. The Parties responded that the anticipated changes to NOPD policies will in no way affect any vested rights.35 As the City states in its supplemental memorandum,
The proposed Consent Decree does not purport to make any changes to the existing rules of the [Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans]. The proposed Consent Decree addresses NOPD polices and procedures, which are separat e from the CSC rules promulgated to ensure that all classified employees are guaranteed due process with regard to their employment positions.36
Thus, the proposed Consent Decree does not a ffect NOPD officers’ property interests in their employment. Consequently, the Police Associations are not entitled to intervene as of right pursuant to a property rights theory.
Nevertheless, the Court underscores, the City and the United States cannot use the proposed Consent Decree as a means of legally sanctioning a violation of the Civil Service rules. The changes to NOPD policies requ ired by the proposed Consent Decree will be clarified during the implementation phase ofthe Consent Decree. Ifchanges are proposed to any NOPD policies that may conflict with the Civil Service rules and procedures, FOP
35 See R. Docs. 53 and 56. 36 R. Doc. 56 at p. 1.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 20 of 25
and/or PANO may move to intervene for the mli ited purpose of asserting their Civil Service
property rights. G iven the circumstances of this case, and the denial of the Police
Associations’ motions to intervene at this stage of the proceedings, the Court will give due
deference to the Police Associations’ arguments that such motions to intervene are timely
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
In addition, the Police Associations cite United States v. City of Los Angeles , 288
F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002), the case involving the consent decree to reform the Los Angeles
Police Department (“LAPD”), in which the Ni nth Circuit held that the police union was
entitled to intervention as of right. In City of Los Angeles, the Court analyzed the police
union’s interest as follows:
Except as part of court-ordered relief after a judicial determination of liability, an employer cannot unilaterally change a collective bargaining agreement as a means of settling a dispute over whe ther the employer has engaged in constitutional violations. Local Number 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cl eveland, 478 U.S. 501, 528-30, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986)(noting that parties settling their own dispute cannot impose obligations on third parties and that “a court may not enter a consent decree that imposes obligations on a party that did no t consent to the decree”); W.R. Grace & Co. v. Loc al Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 771, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 76 L. Ed.2d 298 (1983) (“Absent a judicial determination, the [EEOC], not to menti on the Company, cannot alter the collective bargaining agr eement without the Union's consent.”); United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 975 (11th Cir.1998); United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 441-42 (5th Cir.1981).
Thus, the Police League’s inte rest in the consent decree is two-fold. To the extent that it contains or might contain provisions that contradict terms of the officers’ MOU, the Police League has an interest. Further, to the e xtent that it is disputed whether or not the consent decree conflicts with the MOU, the Police League has the right to present its views on
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 21 of 25
the subject to the district court and have them fully considered in conjunction with the district court’s decision to approve the consent decree. See EEOC v. AT & T,506 F.2d 735, 741-42 (3d Cir.1974).
288 F.3d at 400 (emphasis added). Unlike the Police League in City of Los Angeles, the Police Associations seeking intervention in this case do not have a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding withthe City. This distinction is important because no contractual rights of the NOPD officer members are threatened or impaired by the proposed Consent Decree.
The FOP has represented that it is “not opposed to the entry of the Consent Decree as such . . . . They do, however, wa nt a role in implementing its directives.” 37 At oral argument, counsel for PANO also acknowledg ed that the organization supported the objectives that the City and United State s were pursuing in ne gotiating the proposed Consent Decree.38 Clearly, both the Police Associations and the United States are in favor of constitutional policing through the proposed Consent Decree. The Police Associations have not met the interest requirement for inte rvention as of right and this is why their requests have been denied. The Court notes further that theproposed intervenors have not shown that the United States will inadequatelyrepresent their interests at this stage of the proceedings. The United States, as a governme ntal entity, is presumed to represent its citizens’ interests. To overcome this pres umption, the proposed inte rvenors have the burden of proving that their interests are not represented by the United States. Both the United States and the Police Associations are interested in seeing the Consent Decree put
37 R. Doc. 40 at p. 8. 38 R. Doc. 47 at 25.
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 22 of 25
into place, although they may differ on someaspects of implementation that, for the most part, have yet to be articulated.
The Police Associations have also sought permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). However, the Court finds that permissive intervention by the Police Associations is not appropriate because such intervention would unduly delay these proceedings. The Court has provided ample opportunity for the Police Associations to assist the Court in its consideration of the proposed Consent Decreewithout prejudicing the parties or delaying the proceedings.
D. Powers and Glasser’s Motions to Intervene Powers and Glasser are sworn NOPD officers, and they have moved to intervene in their individual capacities. Again, as o fficers Powers and Glasser are protected by Civil Service under Article X, Section 8 of the Lousiiana Constitution, they have a property right in their employment. Nonetheless, as di scussed above with respect to the Police Associations, the proposed Consent Decree does not impair th eir property rights at this time. For the same reasons, Powers and Gla sser do not have a legally protected interest that would authorize their intervention of right at this time.Concomitantly, the Court finds in its discretion that permissive intervention by Powe rs and Glasser is not appropriate because such intervention would unduly delay these proceedings.
Conclusion In conclusion, the Court recognizes the impo rtance of the goals that the City and United States seek to achieve through implementation of the proposed Consent Decree, as well as the sincere interest of those organizatoins and individuals seeking to intervene. The
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 23 of 25
City and the United States have studied the NOPD and drafted a Consent Decree of historic proportions, with extensive input from stakeholders in the process. Nevertheless, before approving the Consent Decree this Court must be convinced that it is fair, reasonable and adequate after a rigorous examina tion of its provisions, including consideration of the comments of the public and the proposed Intrevenors. The Court will not rubber stamp any plan that does not meaningfully address the legitimate concerns expressed by the OIPM, IPM, CUC and the Police Associations.
The Court has provided ample opportunity for the proposed Intervenors and members of the community to assist the Courtin its consideration of the proposed Consent Decree without prejudicing the parties or delaying the proceedings. The Court has allowed any person wishing to comment upon the proposed Consent Decree to do so by filing a written submission no more than 20 pages in length. 39 The Court will consider all such written submissions in the natur e of amicus briefs as part of its consideration of the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Consent Decree. In addition, the Court will allow the OIPM, CUC, FOP and PANO to participate, as set forth in this Order, in the hearing on the proposed Consent Decere, which is scheduled for September 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. (the “Fairness Hearing”).40
Order For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Intervene by OIPM, IPM, Hutson, and CUC
39 R. Doc. 7 at p. 3. 40 See p. 25, infra.
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 24 of 25
be and hereby are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Intervene by the FOP, PANO,
Powers, and Glasser be and hereby are DENIED. However, if the proposed Consent Decree is approved, the Court will consider renewed motions to intervene by the FO P, PANO , Powers and Glasser during the implementation phase of the Consent Decree if the United States, the City and/or NOPD seekto make changes which may implicate the Civil Service or other legally protected rights afforded to members of FOP and PANO.
The Court is of the opinion that the knowledge and experience of the organizations seeking to intervene in this case (OIPM, CUC,FOP, and PANO) will be of assistance to the Court in making its determination of the fa irness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Consent decree. Accordingly, the Court has requested written comments41 from the proposed Intervenors regarding the termsof the proposed Consent Decree pursuant to the Court’s previous order.42 In addition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court will allow the proposed Intervenors to participate in the Fairness Hearing scheduled for September 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in the following manner:
1. First, the OIPM, CUC, FOP, and PANO each will have a total of thirty (30) minutes during which to offer the live testimony of witnesses and to offer documentary evidence relating to the organization’s objections to the approval of the proposed Consent Decree. These organizations should
41 The Court will treat these comments in the nature of amicus briefs. 42 R. Doc. 7 (Order of the Court dated July 31, 2012).
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 102 Filed 08/31/12 Page 25 of 25 be mindful that the purpose of the Fairness Hearing is to assist the Court in determining whether the proposed Consent Decree is “fair, adequate, and reasonable;” thus, the testimony should be related to those issues. 2. Second, the OIPM, CUC, FOP and PANO may submit proposed questions they would like the Court to ask the United States or the City at the Fairness Hearing. Proposed questions must be submitted to the Cour t via email at efile-Morgan@laed.uscourts.gov no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Fairness Hearing. New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of August, 2012. _____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 122 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER

The City of New Orleans (the “City”) and the United States of America (the “United

States”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter

the proposed Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department as an Order of the Court.1 The proposed Consent Decree requires a Consent Decree Court Monitor

(“Monitor”) to oversee and report on its implementation. The proposed Consent Decree

further requires the Parties to select a mutually acceptable Monitor, subject to Court

approval.

On September 6, 2012, the Court granted the United States’ mo tion for leave to

distribute a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) requesting proposals from persons interested in serving as Monitor. 2 The RFP pr ovides that “[o]nce [the Monitor is] selected and

approved by the Court, the City will fix the rleationship by Professional Services contract.”3

Before the Court is the Parties’ joint motionrequesting that the Court, pending final

approval of the C onsent Decree, preliminarily approve the form of the Monitor’s

1 R. Doc. 2. 2 R. Doc. 110. 3 R. Doc. 110-1 at p. 5.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 122 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 2
Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) so that it may be distributed to persons interested in serving as the Monitor.4
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order and theAgreement attached hereto as Exhibit A must be posted on the United Staets and City’s websitesand distributed to the list of potential respondents attached hereto as Exhibit B. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall distribute hard copies of the Agreement to persons who attend the pre-proposal conference, scheduled forSeptember 20, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. CST in Room C-467, Fourth Floor, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydra s Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. The Court will distribute electronic copies of theAgreement to persons who notified the Court that they would attend the conference via telephone.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2_0_th_ day of September, 2012.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 R. Doc. 121. The Court observes that the final form of the Agreement to be entered into between the Monitor and the City will reflect any amendments to the proposed Consent Decree that the Court may approve following the Fairness Hearing, changes necessary to cover compensation to be paid to the Monitor, or modifications otherwise deemed necessary by the Court.
2

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 130 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion inLimine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence at the

Fairness Hearing scheduled for September 21,2012, in the above-captioned matter filed by

the City of New Orleans (the “City”).1 The United States of America (“United States”), the

Office of the Independent Police Monitor fo r the City of New Orleans (“OIPM”), Su san

Hutson in her official capacity as Independent Police Monitor for the City of New Orleans,

and Susan H utson (“Hutson”) in her indi vidual capacity have filed memoranda in opposition to the City’s motion.2

The City argues that “the purpose of the Fairness Hearing is to determine whether

the proposed Consent Decree is ‘fair, adequa te, and reasonable.’ As such, any testimony

related to specific incidents of alleged police misconduct or alleged constitutional violations

is prejudicial, irrelevant, goes beyond the scope of the Fairness Hearing, and should be

1 R. Doc. 123. The Court granted the City’s motion to expedite hearing of this motion on September 20, 2012. R. Doc. 125. The Court’s Order directed that any memorandum in opposition to the City’s Motion in Limine was to be filed no later than Friday, September 21, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
2 R. Docs. 126 and 127.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 130 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 4
excluded pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401-403.” 3 The United States responds
that
“[t]estimony about the problems the Decree is meant to address is relevant, as it will assist
the Court in understanding why the Decree is necessary, and why its provisions are fair,
adequate, and reasonable. Nor is there a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
or misleading the jury, as this is a judicial hearing rather than a jury trial.” 4 The United
States further states that while it “will offer testimony of individuals’ experiences with the
police department,” it does not “intend for witnesses to identify specific officers. Nor will
the United States discuss any pending criminal matters.”5
OIPM and Hutson urge the Court to deny the motion because:
1. Testimony related to specific incidents of alleged constitutional violations or police misconduct are the exact reason the parties ar e entering into a consent decree information of the chara cter described in Petitioners[’] [sic] Motion go directly to the fa irness, reasonableness, and adequa cy of the current consent decree.
2. The OIPM does not plan on presenting testimony to the court from any i ndividual or family member associated with the Danziger Bridge killing or the Glover killing and further no matter is before this court related to the proposed testimony.
3. Testimony regarding consti tutional violations or police misconduct in the past can’t be prejudicial to the
3 R. Doc. 123-1 at p. 1. Rules 401 through 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence address the relevancy of evidence presented to a court. In particular, Rule 403 provides that a court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
4 R. Doc. 126 at p. 1. 5 R. Doc. 126 at p. 2.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 130 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 4
city because this informatio n is already in the public domain and widely known. 4. The probative value of the proposed testimony far outweighs any prejudice because in determini ng the “fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness,” of this consent decree the court must consider the egregious nature of past conduct to determine the adequacy and fairness of any proposed remedy.6 The purpose of the Fairness Hearing is for the Court to assess the “fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness” of the proposedConsent Decree in this matter. In order to determine whether the proposed Consent Decr ee is adequate and reasonable, the Court must consider the events that led to the filing of this lawsuit and must put these events in context. It would be unreasonable for this Court to approve a consent d ecree if the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) were no t in need of reform. Furthermore, the adequacy of the proposed remedy may be judgedonly in light of the conduct that led to its proposal. To exclude all testimony “related to speci fic incidents of alleged police misconduct or alleged constitutional violations” as the City requests would not serve the interests of the Court or the public. However, the Court is also charged with protecting the judicial process in this Court and other courts. The Court recognizes that there will be no opportunity for crossexamination in this proceeding and, as a result, no opportunity to question or challenge witnesses on any allegations made. Moreoverc, riminal and civil litigation regarding NOPD is pending or anticipated in both federal and state courts in Louisiana and allowing testimony with respect to pending matters couldbe problematic. Consequently, the Court will not permit testimony related to any such pending or anticipated criminal o r civil
6 R. Doc. 127 at pp. 1-2.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 130 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 4 litigation in federal or state court. Furt hermore, the Court will not permit testimony identifying specific NOPD officers or City employees with respect to allegations of misconduct or unconstitutional policing. Th e Court is well aware of the allegations of misconduct against NOPD. Testimony in accordance with this Order will be sufficient for the Court to make the necessary determinations regarding the proposed Consent Decree. Thus,
IT IS ORDERED that the City’s Motion in Limine be and is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2_1_st_ day of September, 2012.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are the Joint Motions for Entry of Decree filed by the United States

of America (“United States”) and the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (

the “City”)

(collectively, the “Parties”).1 For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED and the Parties’ proposed Consent Decree filed by the Parties on July 24, 20122is, APPROVED

AS AMENDED by changes shown on the Parties’ Errata Sheet filed on September 14,

2012.3 Copies of the approved Consent Decree and Errata Sheet are attached to this order.

Background

The United States filed the complaint in this matter against the City, after an

extensive investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”)4, pursuant to the

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”); the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (the “Safe Streets

Act”); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7, and its

1 R. Docs. 2 (filed July 24, 2012) and 114 (filed September 14, 2012). 2 R. Doc. 2-1. 3 R. Doc. 114-2. 4 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 14-16.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 9
implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112 (“Title VI”). The United States seeks to remedy an alleged pattern or practice ofconduct by the NOPD that subjects individuals to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI. The Parties’ proposed Consent Decree contains detailed provisions concerning changes in NOPD policies and practices related to: (1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) performance evaluations and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) the secondary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13) misconduct c omplaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and oversight. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree includes detailed provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree.
On July 31, 2012, this Court entered an order requiring any person wishing to seek intervention in this case under Rule 24 of the Fede ral Rules of Civil Procedure to file a contradictory motion to intervene no later than August 7, 2012, and any party opposing any such motion(s) to intervene to file an opposition to the motion(s) no later than August 14, 2012.5
Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Inc., and Walter Powers, Jr. in his official capacity as Acting President of FOP (“FOP”); Walter Powers, Jr. in his individual capacity (“Powers”); Community United for Change (“CUC”); the Police Association of New
5 R. Doc. 7.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 9
Orleans and Mi chael Glasser in his official capacity as President of PANO (“PANO”); Michael Glasser in his individual capacity (“Glasser”); the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (“OIPM”) and Susan Hutson in her official capacity aIsndependent Police Monitor for the City of New Orleans (“I PM”); and Susan Hutson in her individual capacity (“Hutson”) (collectively, the “Proposed Intervenors”), filed motions to intervene6.The City and the United States opposed the motions to intervene.7 The Court heard oral argument on all four motions on August 20, 2012.8
The Court found that the Proposed Intervenors could not intervene as of right in this matter, and declined to permit them to pe rmissively intervene. Specifically, the Court found that CUC, FOP and PANO did not have any legally protectable interests that would be impaired by the proposed Consent Decree, and thus that they wer e not entitled to intervene as of right. 9 The Court, in its discretion, did not permit them to permissively intervene because the Court determined that it had otherwies provided ample opportunity for the parties to assist the Court in its consi deration of the proposed Consent Decree without prejudicing the Parties or delaying the proceedings. As for Powers and Glasser in their individual capa cities, the Court found that they did not demonstrate any legally
6 FOP and Powers filed their motion to intervene on August 6, 2012. See R. Doc. 9. CUC, PANO and Glasser, and OIPM, IPM and Hutson filed their motions to intervene on August 7, 2012. See R. Docs. 11, 13 and 15.
7 R. Docs. 26 and 27. 8 R. Doc. 37. 9 With respect to FOP and PANO, organizations seeking to protect and represent the interests of NOPD officers, the Court underscored that “as it is currently written, the proposed Consent Decree in no way modifies the Civil Service system for NOPD officers.” R. Doc. 102 at p. 18. Nevertheless, the Court provided that “[i]f changes are proposed to any NOPD policies that may conflict with the Civil Service rules and procedures, FOP and/or PANO may move to intervene for the limited purpose of assert their Civil Service property rights.” See R. Doc. 102 at pp. 21-22.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 4 of 9
protectable interest separate from that of FOP and PANO and, for the same reasons, they could not intervene as of right or permissi vely. With respect to OIPM, the Court determined that the office lacked juridical capacity under Louisiana law and thus was legally incapable of intervening. Finally, because Hutson failed to provide the Court with any argument regarding her i ndividual interest and how any such interest would be impaired as a result of the proposed Consent Decree, the Court determined that she could not intervene as of right or permissively. Accordingly, the Court denied the motions to intervene on August 31, 2012.10 By the same order, the Court further provided that it would allow the Proposed Intervenors to present livetestimony and documentary evidence at the Fairness Hearing and would permit the Proposed Intervenors to submit questions for the Court to ask the United States and the City. 11 In addition, the Court created a publiclyaccessible website where all motions, pleadings, orders, public comments, the City’s Request for Proposals to serve as Consent Decree Court Monitor (“RFP”), and copies of the proposed Consent Decree can be downloaded without charge and without the need to access the Eastern District of Louisiana’s CM/ECF system.12 The Court regularly updates the website to provide notice of activity in the case to the public.
The Court’s July 31, 2012 Order also set the Parties’ Joint Motions for Entry of Decree for hearing on August 29, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in order to assist the Court in determining whether the proposed Consent Decree is “fair, adequate and reasonable” (the
10 R. Doc. 102. 11 R. Doc. 102 at p. 25. 12 See http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/Consent/consent.htm.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 5 of 9
“Fairness Hearing”).13 The Court advised that any person wishing to comment upon the proposed Consent Decree would be permitted to do so by filing a written submission with the Court no later than August 24, 2012, at 4:30 p.m.14 Public notice of the Court’s order and the Fairness Hearing was published in The Times-Picayune.15
On September 21, 2012, the Court c onducted the Fairness Hearing.16 The United States, the City and the Proposed Intervenors presented six hours of live testimony and documentary evidence to the Court.17 OIPM presented the live testimony of Hutson and Jasmine Groves, and OIPM’s Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence. 18 FOP presented the live testimony of Sergeant Christopher Landry and Dr. Bart Leger, and FOP’s Exhibits 1 through 11 were admitted into e vidence.19 CUC presented the live testimony of W.C. Johnson, Malcolm Suber, Randolph J. Scott, Cynthia Parker and Terry Simposn, and CUC’s
13 R. Doc. 7. 14 The Court later continued the Fairness Hearing until September 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., because Hurricane Isaac made landfall in Louisiana on August 28, 2012. See R. Docs. 54 and 109. The Court published notice that the Fairness Hearing had been rescheduled on the website for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 15 R. Doc. 42. 16 See supra n.11. 17 See R. Doc. 132 and its attachments. Emily A. Gunston, Christy E. Lopez, Corey M. Sanders, Stephen C. Parker, Jude Volek, Roy L. Austin, Jr., and James B. Letten appeared on behalf of the United States; Richard F. Cortizas, Brian J. Capitelli, Erica N. Beck, Ralph Capitelli, Sharonda R. Williams, and Churita H. Hansell appeared on behalf of the City; C. Theodore Alpaugh, III, and Claude A. Schlesinger appeared on behalf of FOP and Powers; Eric J. Hessler appeared on behalf of PANO and Glasser; William P. Quigley appeared on behalf of CUC; and John S. Williams appeared on behalf of OIPM and Hutson. 18 R. Docs. 132-1 to 132-2. 19 R. Docs. 132-3 to 132-16.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 6 of 9
Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into evidence.20 Counsel for PANO made a presentation to the Court on the organization’s behalf. The United States presented the live testimony of Santos Alvarado, Delmy Palencia, Alfred Marshall, Tania Tetlow, and Ira Thomas, and the United States’ Exhibits 1 thro ugh 7 were admitted into evidence. 21 Finally, the City presented the live testimony of New OrleansPolice Superintendent Ronal Serpas, and the City’s Exhibits A, B, and C were admitted into evidence2.2 In addition, 158 comments from individuals and organizations were submitted for the Court’s consideration.23
Law and Analysis Settlement is to be encouraged. United States v. Cotton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th 1977). “Because of the consensual nature of [a consent decree], volunta ry compliance is rendered more likely . . . . At the same time, the parties . . . minimize costly litigation and adverse publicity and avoid the collateral effects of adjudicated guilt.”United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d 1147, 1152 n.9 (5th Cir. 1975). Indeed, “the value of voluntary compliance is doubly important when it is a public employer that acts, both because of the example its voluntary assumption of responsi bility sets and because the remediation o f governmental discrimination is of unique importance.” Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 290, 106 S.Ct. 1842 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Nonetheless, “[a] consent decree, although founded on the agreement of the parties, is a judgment.”United
20 R. Docs. 132-17 to 132-24, and 132-37. Exhibits 3 and 6 were admitted into evidence with redactions agreed to by counsel for the City and CUC. Exhibit 8 was admitted as a proffer and ordered placed under seal. R. Doc. 132 at p. 2.
21 R. Docs. 132-25 to 132-32. 22 R. Docs. 132-33 to 132-36. 23 See R. Docs. 58 to 100, 105-106, 111-112, 141 and 145.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 7 of 9
States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 1981) (citingUnited States v. Kellum, 523 F.2d 1284, 1287 (5th Cir. 1975)). Thus, a court “must not merely sign on the line provided by the parties. Even though the decree is predicated on consent of the parties, the judge must not give it perfunctory approval.” Miami, 664 F.2d at 440-441.
When presented with a proposed consent decree, a court must ascertain that the settlement is “fair, adequate and reasonable” and is not the product of “fraud, collusion, or the like.” Id. at 441; Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. “The court must also consider the nature of the litigation and the pu rposes to be served by the decree. If the suit seeks to enforce a statute, the decree must be consistent with the public objectives sought to be attained by Congress.” Miami, 664 F.2d at 441.
In order to determine whether the settlement between the United Stateasnd the City as set forth in the proposed Consent Decree is “fair, adequate and reasonable” and not the product of “fraud, collusion, or the like,” the Court has solicited comments from the public and the Proposed Intervenors, and conducted an extensive Fairness Hearing in which the OIPM, CUC, FOP and PANO were allowed to participate. In addition, the Court also has carefully reviewed the 158 written public comments received.24
As the Court emphasized at the hearing on the motions to intervene, in the Court’s order denying intervention, and at the Fairness Hearing, the Court has given the evidence presented at the Fairness Hearing, as well as the comments from the public and the Proposed Intervenors, serious consi deration when determining whether the proposed Consent Decree is fair, adequate and reasonable. The Parties have represented to the Court
24 See R. Docs. 58 to 100, 105-106, 111-112, 141 and 145. The comments provided by CUC, PANO, FOP and OIPM are filed in the record at R. Docs. 66, 85, 86 and 141, and 92, respectively.
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 8 of 9
that the concerns expressed will be given due consideration as policies and procedures are developed. Mo reover, as the proposed Consent Decree is implemented, the continued involvement of the Court and the Consent Decree Court Monitor (“Monitor”) will ensure that this is the case. Given that the Court must approve the City ’s contract with the Monitor, and the Monitor wi ll report to the Court, the Monitor will be a crucial, independent entity aiding the Court in supervising the proposed Consent Decree’s implementation.25 In addition, reports from the City and the Monitor will be provided to the Court and to the public on a regular basis, ensuring a transparent and rigorous process.
Having considered the proposed Consent Decree, the comments received from the public and the Proposed Interve nors, the testimony and evidence presented at the September 21, 2012 Fairness Hearing, the Parties’ representations, and the fact that the City has committed adequate funding to implement the proposed Consent Decree, the Court finds that the proposed Consent Decree, as amended, is fair, adequate and reasonable, and is not the product of fraud, collusion, or the like. As a result, the Court APPROVES the parties’ proposed Consent Decree as amended as attached hereto.
The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter, including but not limited to the right to interpret, amend and enforce the Consent Decree and to appoint a special master pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure, until the final remedy contemplated by the Consent Decree has been achieved. See Chisom v. Jindal , __ F.Supp.2d __, 2012 WL 3891594, at *9-10 (E.D. La. Sept. 1, 2012).
Accordingly,
25 R. Doc. 110-1 at p. 5 (RFP) and Consent Decree, attached to this order, at ¶ 444 et seq. 8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159 Filed 01/11/13 Page 9 of 9
The Parties’ Joint Motions for Entr y of Decree are GRANTED and the Parties’ proposed Consent Decree is APPROVED AS AMENDED by the changes shown on the Errata Sheet.
A separate judgment will be entered by the Court. The City has informed the Court that it intends to file a motion seeking relief from the judgment entered in connection with th is order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such motion shall be filed in this action no later than January 31, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Any response to the City’s moti on shall be filed no later than February 15, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. The City’s arguments and any response thereto shall be considered by the Court when the Court deems the motion submitted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _1_1_th_ day of January, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the Motion to Stay filed by the Defendant, the City of Ne w

Orleans, Louisiana (the “City”). 1 The City seeks to stay the i mplementation and

enforcement of the Consent Decree this Court entered as a final judgment2 on January 11, 2013, pending the Court’s consideration of th e City’s Motion to Vacate such judgment. 3

Plaintiff, the United States of America (“UnitedStates”), opposes the City’s Motion to Stay4.

The Court previously informedthe Parties that the “motion shall be submitted to the Court for consideration as soon as the Court isin receipt of the United States’ response.”5 As the

Court has received the United States’ opposition memorandum, the Motion to Stay is ripe

for decision. For the following reasons, the Motion to Stay is DENIED.

1 R. Doc. 172. 2 R. Docs. 159 and 160. 3 R. Doc. 175. 4 R. Doc. 177. 5 R. Doc. 170.
1

Background

On July 24, 2012, the United States filedits complaint in this matter against the City

after an extensive investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”)6,pursuant

to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. § 14141), the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3789d, the “Safe Streets Act”), and

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7) and its

implementing regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 42.1 01-.112) (“Title VI”), in order to remedy

NOPD’s alleged pattern or practice of conductwhich subjects individuals to excessive force

in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the

Fourth Amendment, and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI.

Less than one hour after the United Statesfiled its complaint, the United States and

the City (together, the “Parties”) filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Decree. Attached to such

motion was a proposed Consent Decree containing detailed provisions concerning changes

in NOPD policies and practices related to: (1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and

detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups;

(5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer

assistance and support; (10) performance ev aluations and promotions; (11) supervision;

(12) the secondary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13)

misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and

oversight. In addition, the proposed Cons ent Decree also i ncluded detailed provisions

regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Dercee. The Parties’ motion

6 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 14-16.
2

stated that they sought “to resolve [the] liti gation with entry o f the attached negotiated Consent Decree” because the document was “int ended to ensure that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in amanner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”7 After careful deliberation toensure that the proposed Consent Decree was “fair, adequate and reasonable,” th e Court entered it as a final judgment on January 11, 2013.8 Because the City has moved to vacate the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree, the City argues that the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree should be stayed while the Court considers the City’s Motion to Vacate.
The City originally filed the instant Motion to Stay as anex parte motion.9 Because the City did not obtain the United States’ consent to such motion, the Court instructed the City to refile it as an opposed motion in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 10 The Court further instructed the City to support its motion with a “memorandum of legal authority.1”1 The City did so, arguing that a stay is warranted because “[t]he DOJ has suggested a timeline to begin i mplementing provisions of the Consent Decree, and the Cityshould not be forced to begin implementing any costly measures while this Court is considering the City’s position with regard to the Motion to Vacate. To allow otherwise would prejudice the City.1”2 In support of its motion,
7 R. Doc. 2 at pp. 1-2. 8 R. Docs. 159 and 160. 9 R. Doc. 168. 10 R. Doc. 170. 11 R. Doc. 170. 12 R. Doc. 172.
3

the City’s “memorandum of legal authority” states:

[T]he City has filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s Order approving the Consent Decree. The Court has granted the United States of America, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) until February 15, 2013 to file a response memorandum to the City’s Motion to Vacate. In the absence of a stay, the City, however, may be required to begin implementing costly measures under the Consent Decree, which will prejudice the City and perhaps hamper its ability to meet other financial obligations.

The DOJ has suggested a timeline to begin implementing provisions of the Consent Dec ree. In particular, the DOJ has suggested a timeline for forming an Evaluation Committee to select a Consent Decree Monitor, which is one of the most costly measures required by th e Consent Decree. In fact, this Court has issued an order that the parties must provide the names of five individuals to serve on the Evaluation Committee by February 15, 2013—the same d ay the DOJ is to file its response to the City’s Motion to Vacate.See Rec. Doc. No. 162. The City should not be requiredto begin the Monitor selection process before this Court has evenreceived full briefing on the City’s Motion to Vacate.

Notably, the Consent Decree includes a provision stating that the City’s procurement process would be utilized in selecting the Monitor. See ¶477 of Consent Decree. The Court, however, has modified the procurement process utilized to select the Monitor, redlining and editing the Request for Proposal used to solicit the Monitor and altering the disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the Monitor. T he City should not be required to engage in the Monitor se lection process, which differs from whatwas contained in the Consent Decree, before this Court receives all briefing and makes a ruling on the City’s Motion to Vacate.13

The United States has responded to the

City’s motion, arguing that the “Ci ty’s

three-paragraph motion has failed to set forth any legally-sufficient basis fo r staying

implementation of the Decree.”14 The Court agrees with the United States.

13 R. Doc. 172-1 at pp. 1-2. 14 R. Doc. 177.
4

Law and Analysis Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Porcedure provides that a court may stay the execution of a judgment pending disposition oaf motion brought pursuant to Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(4) (“On appropriate terms for the opposing party’s security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment – or any proceedings to enforce it – pending disposition of [a motion] . . . under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.”). Whether to grant such a stay is discretionary. See Wright & Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2903 (3d ed.); see also Boyd v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C, .2011 WL 4062383, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 13, 2011) (stating that district courts “enjoythe discretionary authority to stay proceedings ‘in the interest of justice and in con trol of their dockets. ’ ”) (quoting Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 1983)). The Fifth Circuit has set forth four factors a court may consider in determining if it should stay relief pending appeal: “ ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whetherissuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ ” Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd. , 2013 WL 141791, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987));Nat’l Treasury Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 808 F.2d 1057, 1059 (5th Cir. 1987). Ot her U.S. District Courts have found these factors instructive when considering whether to grant a motion to stay pursua nt to Rule 62(b). See AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 2012 WL 3745625, at *1 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 28, 2012) (applying these factors to a Rule62(b) motion requesting a stay pending the outcome of the court’s orders regarding movant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter
5

of law and Rule 59 motion for a new trial);SEC v. Retail Pro, Inc., 2011 WL 3515910, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011) (same). This Court likewise finds these factors instructive given the relief requested in the instant motion to stay.
First, the Court addresses the City’s assertion that the “Consent Decree includes a provision stating that the City’s procurement process would be utilized in selecting the Monitor,” citing paragraph 477 of the July 24, 2012 version of the proposed Consent Decree.15 The Court did not approve the Consent Dceree as filed July 24, 2012. Rather, the Court’s January 11, 2013 order stated that teh“proposed Consent Decree filed by the Parties on July 24, 2012, isAPPROVED AS AMENDEDby changes shown on the Parties’ Errata Sheet filed on September 14, 2012.” 16 The September 14, 2012 Errata Sheet – which the Parties presented to the Court for approval by joint motion17 – removed the sentence the City relies on for this argument.18 As a result, contrary to the City’s argument, the Consent Decree entered as a final judgment of this Court does not state that the Parties will use the City’s procurement process in selecting the Court Monitor.
Turning to the crux of theCity’s argument why the Court should grant its Motion to Stay, the City contends that, in the absence of a stay, it “may be requi red to begin implementing costly measures under the Consent Decree, which will prejudice the City and perhaps hamper its a bility to meet other financial obligations.” 19 The City fails to
15 See R. Doc. 172-1 at p. 2; R. Doc. 2-1 at ¶ 477 (“The Parties have agreed to use New Orleans’s procurement process in selecting the Monitor.”).
16 R. Doc. 159 at p. 1 (bold in original). 17 R. Doc. 114. 18 R. Doc. 114-2 at p. 7. 19 R. Doc. 177 at p. 1.
6

demonstrate that it is at risk of sufferingrireparable harm if implementation of the Consent Decree is not stayed. The City and NOPD must comply with the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. To that end, the City has represented to the Court that it intends to move forward with reforming the NOPD so thatit will be in compliance with all applicable laws.20 Regardless of how such reform may be achieved, whether via collaboration between the United States and the City, or via anotherprocess, it will never be without cost. As the Fifth Circuit has consistently underscored,“inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986);see also Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (rejecting argument that “lack of funds to impelment the trial court’s order” justified failure to remedy ongoing constitutional violations);Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319 (5th Cir. 1972) (“Where state institutions have been operating under unconstitutional conditions and practices, the defense of fund shortage(s) . . . [has] been rejected by the federal courts.”).
By contrast, the United States and residents of New Orleans will suffer substantial harm to their interests in having a constitutional police force if the Court grants the City’s motion. The United States conducted an extensive pattern or practice i nvestigation, beginning in May 2010, that resulted in a comprehensive report issued March 16, 2011, detailing how NOPD allegedly engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force; unlawful stops, searches and arrests; and discriminatory policing based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, all in violation of the Constitution and federal law. 21 The United
20 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 1 (“Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu began reforming the New Orleans Police Department (‘NOPD’) when he took office in May 2010 and remains committed to implementing reforms to ensure that the NOPD is the best police department in the nation.”).
21 See R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 28-77.
7

States’ investigation attributed these ongoin g constitutional violations to entrenched
deficiencies within “a wide swath of City and NOPD systems and o perations,” including
failures to:
adopt and enforce appropriate policies; properly recruit, train, and supervise offi cers; adequately review and investigate officer uses of force; fully investigate allegations of misconduct; identify and respond to pattern s of a t-risk officer behavior; implement community policing; oversee and control the ysstem of Paid Details; provide officer assistance and support; or enact appropriate performance review and promotional systems.22
According to the United States, these systemic failures “have created an environment that permits and promotes constitutional harm.”23 Violations of constitutional rights constitute irreparable harm, an even stronger showing than what is required.24 See Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373-374 (1976); Wright & Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2948.1 (2d ed.
1995) (finding that, in the context o f preliminary injunctions, “[w]hen an alleged
deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing
of irreparable injury is necessary”). In addtiion, implementing the reforms set forth in the
Consent Decree clearly is in the public interes.t Nothing before the Court indicates that the
City has remedied the serious defic iencies identified in the United States’ investigation,
much less that the City has devised an alternative plan, with which it is prepared to move
forward on its own volition, in order to address these deficiencies.
Finally, the remaining factor examines “w hether the sta y applicant has made a
22 R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 13-14. 23 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 13. 24 Again, a party requesting a stay must show that it “will be irreparably injured absent a stay,” whereas, with respect to other parties, the Court must determine whether such parties will be “substantially injure[d]” if a stay is granted. See Moore, 2013 WL 141791, at *2 (emphasis added).
8

strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits.” Moore, 2013 WL 141791, at *2 (emphasis added). T he City ha s not made any showing whatsoever that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its Motion to Vacate. Because the City has not met its burden as to this factor, the Court does not consider it. See also Retail Pro, Inc., 2011 WL 3515910, at *3 (declining, where movant failed to show possibility of irreparable harm, to consider movant’s likelihood of success onthe merits of the underlying motion in denying Rule 62(b) stay request).25
As the Court has found that (1) the UnitedStates and residents of New Orleans will suffer substantial harm if a stay is granted, (2) declining to grant a stay is in the public interest, (3) the City will not suffer irreparableharm if the Court denies its Motion to Stay, and (4) the City has made noargument regarding the likelihood of its success on the merits regarding its Motion to Vacate, the Court concul des that the balance of the equities weighs heavily against granting the City’s Motion for Stay.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _8_t_h_ day of February, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25 The Court anticipates ruling on the City’s Motion to Vacate in a timely manner so that, in the event the motion is denied, the Parties will not be prevented from moving forward with selecting the Court Monitor and executing the professional services agreement with same. In declining to grant the City’s request for a stay, the Court expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of the City’s ultimate success on the merits of its Motion to Vacate.
9

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 175 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:

12-CV-01924

VERSUS

:

: CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
SECTION E JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN
DIVISION 2 MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE PURSUANT TO RULE 60 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), moves this Honorable Court f or an order vacating the Consent Decree entered by th e Court on January 11, 2013. Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu began reforming the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) when he took office in May 2010 and remains committed to implementing reforms to ensure that the NOPD is the bes t police department in the nation. The City, however, is compelled to file this Motion because, as fully set forth in the Memorandum filed herewith, the negotiations that led to the signing of the Consent Decree were tainted, any consent provided by the City was vitiated under Louisiana law, and there is a plethora of procedural deficiencies underlying the proceedings that led to the entry of the Consent Decree.

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 175 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 3

Respectf
/s/ MATTHEW
CHRISTY
MARY
CHURITA DEPUTY ERICA
SHARONDA
RICHARD
1300 New Telephone: Facsim

ully submitted,
Sharonda R. Williams J. LINDSAY (LSB #30599)
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HAROWSKI (LSB #30712)
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHERINE TAYLOR (LSB#32719)
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HANSELL (LSB#25694)
CITY ATTORNEY N. BECK (LSB #30000) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
R. WILLIAMS (LSB#28809) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
F. CORTIZAS (LSB #28890) CITY ATTORNEY
Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 Orleans, Louisiana 70112
504-658-9920 ile: 504-658-9868 shrwilliams@nola.gov

BRIAN RALPH CAPITELLI
1100 New Telephone:

CAPITELLI (LSB#27398) CAPITELLI (LSB#3858)
& WICKER Energy Centre
Poydras Street, Ste. 2950 Orleans, LA 70163
504-582-2425

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been serv ed on all counsel of
record through the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system this 31st day of January, 2013.
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS

2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 175 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 3
3

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the motion to vacate filed by the City of New Orleans (“City”).1

The City seeks to vacate the Consent Decreeregarding the New Orleans Police Department

(“NOPD”) entered as a judgment of this Courton January 11, 2013, pursuant to Rule 60(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 The United States of America (“United States”)

1 R. Doc. 175. The City has also filed a reply memorandum. See R. Doc. 202. In addition, Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. (“FOP”), sought leave to file an amicus curiae memorandum in support of the City’s motion. See R. Doc. 186. The Court granted FOP leave to file its memorandum and has considered FOP’s arguments in conjunction with the instant motion. See R. Doc. 191.
2 R. Docs. 159 and 160. The Court recognizes that the City has also filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) regarding the Court’s approval of the Consent Decree. See R. Doc. 180. Nevertheless, because the Court is denying the City’s requested relief, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion to vacate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(I); Thermacor Process, L.P. v. BASF Corp., 567 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2009). As the Eleventh Circuit has explained,
following the filing of a notice of appeal district courts do not possess jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, a district court presented with a Rule 60(b) motion after a notice of appeal has been filed should consider the motion and assess its merits. Itmay then deny the motion or indicate itsbelief that the arguments raised are meritorious.If the district court selects the latter course, the movant may then petition the court of appeals to remand the matter so as to confer jurisdiction on the district court to grant the motion.
. . .
Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand, C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 359 n.1 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); see also Boyko v. Anderson, 185 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 1999) (same); Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 890-91 (4th Cir. 1999) (same);Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308, 312 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (same); Charles Alan Wr ight, Arthur R. Mi ller & Mary Kay Kane, 11 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2873 (2d ed . 1997) (discussing the holding of several
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 2 of 48
opposes the City’s motion.3 For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. Background
Mitchell J. Landrieu (“Mayor Landrieu” or “the Mayor”) assumed office as Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 3, 2010. On May 5, 2010, Mayor Landrieu wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holde,rJr. “to ask for [his] support and partnership in transforming the New OrleansPolice Department into one ofthe best police forces in the United States.” 4 According to the Mayor, he “inh erited a police force that has been described by many as one of the worst police departments in the country.”5 In his opinion, “nothing short of a complete transformation isnecessary and essential to ensure safety for the citizens of New Orleans. The police force, the communi ty, [and] . . . citizens are desperate for positive change.”6 Mayor Landrieu’s letter requested the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to conduct an “independent investigation” of the NOPD in order “to determine how to prevent, detect, and disci pline misconduct as well as introduce best
circuits that “during the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a remand,” and concluding that “[t]his procedure is sound in theory and preferable in practice”). Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2003). 3 R. Doc. 184. Community United for Change (“CUC”) also sought leave to leave to file an amicus curiae memorandum in opposition to the City’s motion. See R. Doc. 195. The Court granted CUC leave to file its memorandum and has considered CUC’s arguments in conjunction with the instant motion. See R. Doc. 197. 4 R. Doc. 184-1. 5 R. Doc. 184-1. 6 R. Doc. 184-1.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 3 of 48
practices for public safety.”7 Shortly thereafter, the DOJ opened an i nvestigation of the NOPD pursuant to the
Violent Cri me Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“Section 14141,” 42 U.S.C. § 14141); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe St reets Act of 1968 (“Safe Streets Act,” 42 U.S.C. § 3789d); and Title VI of the Civil RightsAct of 1964 ( “Title VI,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7 and its implementing ergulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112).8 Seven lawyers and other staff from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Di vision in Washington, D.C., conducted the investigation.9 Approximately eleven law enforc ement professionals – which included current and former police chiefs; supervis ors; and experts in officer assistance, investigation of sexual assaults, custodial interrogations, and law enforcement response to persons in mental heath crisis10 – assisted the DOJ attorneys (collectively, “the investigative team” or “the team”).11 Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then-U.S. Attorney James B. Letten (“Letten”) also assisted the investigation. Letten assigned then-assistant U.S. Attorney Salvador Perricone (“Perricone”) to act as a liaison between the investigative team and the U.S. Attornye’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Other efderal services, including the DOJ’s Community Relations Service; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Marshal Service; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
7 R. Doc. 184-1 (“I ask that you assign a team from the [DOJ’s] Civil Rights Division to begin working with me and within the NOPD. I am confident that this partnership will bring about significant change that will lead to a better police force in New Orleans.”).
8 R. Doc. 1-1. 9 R. Doc. 184-12 at p. 1. 10 These experts “provided in-depth knowledge about how to detect and respond to law enforcement challenges.” R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 26. 11 R. Doc. 184-12 at p. 1.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 4 of 48
Firearms and Explosives; the Office of Justice Programs; the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; the Office on Vioelnce Against Women; the Office on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Access to Justiec Initiative likewise provided assistance1.2
The investigative team conducted “intervi ews and meetings with NOPD officers, supervisors and command staff, as well as members of the public, City and State officials, and other community stakeholders.” 13 In addition, the team gathered information from NOPD documents, including “policies and procedures, trainign materials, incident reports, use of force reports, crime investigation filesd, ata collected by the Department, complaints of misconduct, and misconduct investigations;”participated in ride-alongs with officers and supervisors, attended COMSTAT m eetings,14 observed police activity, and met with representatives of police fraternal organiza tions; and solicited the views of o fficers, community members, judges from state and munic ipal courts, members of the Orleans Parish Distric t Atto rney’s Office, the Or leans Public Defender, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Independent Poli ce Monitor, the City Counc il, Louisiana State Legislators, the Business Council of Nwe Orleans & the River Region, the New Orleans Police and Justi ce Foundation, and the New Orleans Crime Coalition. 15 Finally, the investigative team participated in more than forty community meetings.16
12 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 25. 13 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 26. 14 COMSTAT meetings are the NOPD’s weekly crime-statistic reporting meetings that are open to the public. R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 131. 15 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 26. 16 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 26. Some community meetings were initiated at the investigative team’s request, while others were regularly-scheduled community meetings, such as those held by the New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council and the Rape Crisis Network. R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 26.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 5 of 48
Approximately ten months after itsinvestigation commenced, the DOJ memorialzied
its findings in a comprehensivereport dated March 16, 20111.7 The investigation identified
an alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct with respect to the use of force;
stops, searches, and arrests; and discriminatory policing based on race, ethnicity, gender,
and sexual orientation, all in violationof the U.S. Constitution and federal law18. Generally,
the DOJ concluded that
the Department has been largely indifferent to widespread violations of law and policy by its officers. NOPD does not have in place the basic systems known to improve public safety, ensureconstitutional practices, and promote public confidence. . . . [D]eficiencie s that lead to constitutional violations span the operation of the entire Deparmt ent, from how officers are recruited, trained, supervised, and held accountable, to the operation of Paid Details1.9 In the absence of mechanisms to protetcand promote civil rights, officers too frequently use excessive force and conductillegal stops, searches and arrests with impunity. In a ddition, the Department’s culture tolerates and encourages under-enforcement and under-investigation of violence against women. The Department has failed to take meaningful steps to counteract and eradicate bias based on race, ethnicity, and LGBT status in its policing practices, and has failed to provide critical policing services to language minority communities.20
Specifically, with respect to officers’ use offorce, the DOJ found that the NOPD “routinely
use[s] unnecessary and unreasonable force in violati on of the Constitution,” including
17 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (Mar. 16, 2011). See R. Doc. 1-1.
18 R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 28-78.
19 “Paid details” are referred to as “secondary employment” in the Consent Decree. As summarized in the DOJ’s report, the “Detail system is essentially a form of overtime work for officers. Officers may work ad hoc Details providing, for example, extra security for special events or individuals visiting New Orleans. Or an officer may have a regularly-scheduled Detail, such as being hired by a business to provide security in a retail establishment or by a neighborhood association to patrol the neighborhood. When on Detail, however, officers are paid and largely controlled by entities other than NOPD.” R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 17. Many NOPD officers seek secondary employment assignments in order to supplement their NOPD salaries.
20 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 6.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 6 of 48
particular deficiencies with respect to the “use of deadly force, force against restrained individuals, . . . and the use of canines2.1” Furthermore, with respect to Fourth Amendment violations, the DOJ opined that “detentionswithout reasonable suspicion are routine, and lead to unwarranted searches and arrests without probable cause;” that a large proportion of surveyed arrest reports “reflected constitutoi nal deficiencies;” and that the NOPD leaves its officers “wi thout the basic foundation to perform their duties within constitutional boundaries.”22
The D OJ attributed these ongoing const itutional violations to entrenched deficiencies within “a wide swath of City and NOPD systems and operations,” including failures to
adopt and enforce appropriate policies; porperly recruit, train, and supervise officers; adequately review and i nvestigate officer uses of force; fully investigate allegations of misconduct; i dentify and respond to patterns of at-risk officer behavior; implement community policing; oversee and control the system of Paid Details; provide officer assistance and support; or enact appropriate performance review and promotional systems.23 Specifically with respect to paid details, theDOJ’s investigation revealed that there “are few aspects of NOPD more broadly troubling thanits Paid Detail system” and that this system “was a significant contributing factor to both the perception and the reality of NOPD as a dysfunctional organization.”24 On March 17,2011, Mayor Landrieu announced the results of the DOJ’s investigation
21 R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 28-30. 22 R. Doc. 1-1 at pp. 8, 57-58. 23 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 13-14. 24 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 96.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 7 of 48
at a press conference with Deputy Attonrey General James Cole, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (“Perez”), Letten, and NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas (“Chief Serpas”) in attendance. In a press release memorialiizng the conference, the Mayor called the report “the result of an invitation” to the DOJ to “partner with the [City’s] administration in the wholesale transformation” of the NOPD and further remarked that it was “an honest assessment” which would help the City undertake “a data-driven approach to making [the City’s] streets safer and reforming the NOPD.2”5 The report’s “findings are sobering and the challenges ahead are daunting,” Mayor Landrieu continued, “but [the City] will do what ever [sic] it takes to make this right.”26
Thereafter, the Mayor gave Chief Serpas “astrong directive to completely and totally overhaul the [NOPD] paid detail system.”27 In his May 15, 2011 letter to Mayor Landrieu regarding paid details, Chief Serpas recognized that “[b]oth you and I know that the flawed paid detail system has failed both the NOPD, and more importantly, o ur citizens.” 28 According to Chief Serpas, theCity would be incapable of achieving a “wholesale reform of the NOPD without steadfast diligence in implementing a complete and total overhaul of the paid detail system.”29 To remedy these problems, Chief Serpas recommended “taking the
25 R. Doc. 184-15. 26 R. Doc. 184-15. 27 R. Doc. 184-14 at p. 2. 28 R. Doc. 184-14 at p. 4. As the Mayor explained at a July 24, 2012 press conference, “[i]n the old NOPD, many officers’ first duty was to their paid details which were not managed in any centralized system. The result was conflict of interest, officers with divided loyalty spending most of their time on details, unequal access to earn extra money, cash exchanges, and the perversion of the command structure.” July 24, 2012 press conference video (see infra n.37). 29 R. Doc. 184-14 at p. 16.
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 8 of 48
management of the paid detail system out of the NOPD.”30 “Given the apparent size and scope of paid details,” Serpas wrote“, it is preferable to have an independent entity manage this process to free NOPD leadership to focus exclusively on the mission of the NOPD. In its place, we are recommending crea ting a central office to be re sponsible for coordinating al l el ements an d s ervices r elating t o p aid d etails.”31 Under Chief Serpas’ proposal, this central office would be admini stered by “a civilian director out of NOPD control and controlled facilities.”32
Furthermore, in the months following therelease of the March 16, 2011 report, DOJ attorneys began drafting language for a cooperative agreement between the United States and the City to remedy the NO PD’s a lleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct.33 DOJ attorneys provided their initial draft of this document, which was labeled a “Consent Decree,” to attorneysfor the City on October 25, 20113,4 and counsel for the City and the United States (together, “the Part ies”) commenced negotiations regarding the proposed Consent Decree’s terms in November 2011.35 After nine months of “protracted negotiations conducted by experienced and sophisticated litigants, aided on both sides by subject matter experts, and with an eyetowards their shared goals of reform,”36 the Parties
30 R. Doc. 184-14 at p. 2 (bold and underlining in original). 31 R. Doc. 184-14 at p. 2. 32 R. Doc. 184-14 at pp. 2-3. 33 R. Doc. 184-16. 34 R. Doc. 184-16. 35 R. Doc. 184-16. 36 R. Doc. 2 at p. 9.
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 9 of 48
announced at a press conference on July 242, 012, that they had reached a compromise and were submitting a pr oposed Consent Decree to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for approval. 37 In the company of U.S. Attorney General Holder, Perez, Letten, Chief Serpas, and then-City Attorney Richard Cortizas (“Cortizas”), Mayor Landrieu lauded the City’s “voluntary partnership” with the DOJ38 and discussed the details of the proposed Consent Decree that were intended to “fundamentally change the culture of the NOPD once and for all.” 39 “We can and we must change,” the Mayor vowed. 40 Referencing the proposed Consent Decree, Mayor Landrieu concluded that the City “now ha[d] a clear roadmap forward.”41
On the same day as the July 2 4, 2012 press conference, the United States filed its complaint in this case against the City pursuantto Section 14141; the Safe Streets Act; and Title VI.42 The complaint alleged that the NOPD egnages in a pattern or practice of conduct that subjects individuals to excessive force inviolation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, unlawful searches and seizuresin violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
37 The City video-recorded the July 24, 2012 press conference and uploaded a copy of such video on the Mayor’s official YouTube Channel. See “Mayor Landrieu, Justice Department announce details of consent decree,” available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkhrv4xgl-4 (“July 24, 2012 press conference video”). The Court has reviewed the video and all quotations taken therefrom were transcribed by the Court after its review.
38 July 24, 2012 press conference video (“On my third day in office, I invited the Department of Justice to partner with us to reform the NOPD. That voluntary partnership, I believe, will be the thing that allows true change to take hold. On May 17, 2010, the DOJ began a formal and independent investigation into the patterns and practices of this Department. We asked for it and we got it. In March 2011, the Civil Rights Division described a Department that in many ways had lost its way.”).
39 July 24, 2012 press conference video. 40 July 24, 2012 press conference video. 41 July 24, 2012 press conference video. 42 R. Doc. 1.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 10 of 48

U.S. Constitution, and discriminatory polici ng practices in vi olation of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI.

43

Contemporaneously therewith, the Parties filed a joint motion 44 seeking the Court’s

approval of the proposed ConsentDecree attached thereto45 that would remedy the NOPD’s

alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct. 46 The proposed Consent Decree

contained detailed provisions concerning changes in NOPD policies and practices related

to (1) the use of force; (2) inve stigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3)

custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community

engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and suppo

rt; (10)

performance evaluations and promotions; (11)supervision; (12) the secondary employment

system, also kn own as the paid detail sy stem; (13) misconduct complaint intake,

investigation, and adjudication; and (14) tran sparency and oversight. In addition, the

proposed Consent Decree included detailed provisions regarding its implementation and

enforcement.

According to the Parties’ joint motion, the DOJ’s March 16, 2011 report of its NOPD

investigation, which was attached to the Unietd States’ complaint and incorporated therein

by reference, “establishe[d] a more than adequate factual record supporting the legitimacy”

of the proposed Consent Decree. 47 The Parties represented in the joint motion that they

43 R. Doc. 1. 44 R. Docs. 2 and 114. The Parties filed a supplemental joint motion on September 14, 2012. See R. Doc. 114. 45 R. Doc. 2-1. 46 The City denied the allegations contained in the complaint. R. Doc. 2 at p. 2. 47 R. Docs. 2 at p. 5 and 2-1 at pp. 6-7.
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 11 of 48
were “intimately familiar with the practices of the NOPD and spent long hours negotiating the [proposed] Consent Decree.”48 “This adversarial posture, combined with the respective duties of these government agencies toward s those the y represent,” the Parties argued, provided “assurance” that the proposed Consent D ecree was “fair, adequate, and reasonable”49 and was “fully consistent with the statutes being enforced and the public objectives of those statutes.”50 The Parties urged the Court to expeditiously approve the proposed Consent Decree in order “to dramatically and fundame ntally reform NOPD to achieve protection of the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of Ne w Orleans, and increase public confidence in NOPD.”51
The Court immediately scheduled a status conference with the Parties for July 26, 2012, to discuss the procedure for approving the proposed Consent Decree.52 At the status conference, the Parties exhorted the Court to move quickly, as the Parties sought to begin reforming the NOPD as soon as possible. 53 To ensure the Court satisfied its duty to determine whether the proposed Consent Decree was i n fact “fair, adequate, and
48 R. Doc. 2 at p. 8. 49 R. Doc. 2 at p. 8. 50 R. Doc. 2 at p. 3. 51 R. Doc. 2 at p. 9. 52 R. Doc. 3. 53 The Court conducted further status conferences with the Parties on August 3, 2012, August 8, 2012, and August 14, 2012. See R. Docs. 8, 19, and 25. At these conferences the Parties again emphasized the proposed Consent Decree’s importance and that they sought to expeditiously initiate the reform process.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 12 of 48
reasonable” before approving it, 54 the Court afforded an oppor tunity for any interested
party to move to intervene in the case pursua nt to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court entered an order on July31, 2013, instructing any such party to file
a motion to intervene no later than August 7, 2 012, and any party opposing any such
motion(s) to intervene to filean opposition to the motion(s) no later than August 14, 201525.
The Court’s July 31, 2012 Order also se t t he Parties’ joint motion for approval of the
proposed Consent D ecree for hearing on August 29, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (the “Fairness
Hearing”), in order to assist the Court in determininwg hether the proposed Consent Decree
was “fair, adequate and r easonable.”56 Neither party objected to the Court’s proposed
54 As the Court stated in its order finding that the proposed Consent Decree was fair, adequate, and reasonable,
Settlement is to be encouraged. United States v. Cotton , 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th 1977). “Because of the consensual nature of [a consent decree], voluntary compliance is rendered more likely . . . . At the same time, the part ies . . . minimi ze costly litigation and adverse publicity a nd a void th e colla teral effects of adjudicated g uilt.” United States v. Ci ty of Jackson, Mis s., 519 F.2d 1147, 1152 n.9 (5th Cir. 1975 ). Indeed, “the value of voluntary compliance is doubly important when it is a public employer that acts, both because of the example its voluntary assumption of responsi bility sets and because the remediation of governmental discrimination is of unique importance.” Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ,.476 U.S. 267, 290, 106 S.Ct. 1842 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Nonetheless, “[a] consent decree, although founded on the agreement of the parties, is a judgment.” United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Kellum, 523 F.2d 1284, 1287 (5th Cir. 1975)). Thus, a court “must not merely sign on the line provided by the parties. Even though the decree is predicated on consent of the parties, the judge must not give it perfunctory approval.” Miami, 664 F.2d at 440-441.
When presented with a proposedconsent decree, a court mustascertain that the settlement is “fair, adequate and reasonable” and is not the product of “fraud, collusion, or the like.” Id. at 441; Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. “The court must also consider the nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served bythe decree. If the suit seeks to enforce a statute, the decree must be consistent with the public objectievs sought to be attained by Congress.”Miami, 664 F.2d at 441.
See R. Doc. 159 at pp. 6-7.
55 R. Doc. 7.
56 R. Doc. 7.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 13 of 48
procedures for conducting the Fairness Hearing. In addition, the Court advised that any person wishing to comment upon the proposed Consent Decree could be permitted to do so by filing a written submi ssion with the Court no later than August 24, 2012, at 4:30 p.m.57 Public notice of the Court’s order and the Fairness Hearing was pub lished in The Times-Picayune.58 The Court also published a copy otfhe proposed Consent Decree on the website for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Orderof Police, Inc., and Walter Powers, Jr. in his official capacity as Acting President oFf OP (“FOP”); Walter Powers, Jr. in his individual capacity (“Powers”); Community United for Change (“CUC”); the Police Association of New Orleans and Michael Glasser in hi s official capacity as President of PANO (“PANO”); Michael Glasser in his individual capacity (“Gal sser”); the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (“OIPM”) and Susan Hutson in her foficial capacity as Independent Police Monitor for the City of New Orleans (“IPM”) ; a nd Susan Hutson in her individual capacity (“Hutson”) (collectively, the “Proposed Intervenors”), filed motions tointervene.59 The City and the United States opposed the motions to intervene6.0 The Court heard oral argument on all four motions on August 20, 2012.61
57 The Court later continued the Fairness Hearing until September 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., because Hurricane Isaac made landfall in Louisiana on August 28, 2012. See R. Docs. 54 and 109. The Court published notice that the Fairness Hearing had been rescheduled on the website for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
58 R. Doc. 42. 59 FOP and Powers filed their motion to intervene on August 6, 2012. See R. Doc. 9. CUC, PANO and Glasser, and OIPM, IPM and Hutson filed their motions to intervene on August 7, 2012. See R. Docs. 11, 13 and 15. 60 R. Docs. 26 and 27. 61 R. Doc. 37.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 14 of 48
Thereafter, the Court denied the Proposed Intervenors’ intervention as of right, and declined to allow them to permissively intervene6.2 Specifically, the Court found that CUC, FOP and PANO did not have anylegally protectable interests that would be impaired by the proposed Consent Decree, and thus that they were not entitled to intervene as of right.63 The Court, in its discretion, did not allow themto permissively intervene because the Court determined that it had otherwise provided ample opportunity for them to assist the Court in its consideration of the proposed Consent Decree without pre judicing the Parties or delaying the proceedings. As for Powers and Glasser in their individual capacities, the Court found that they did not demonstrate any legally protectable interest separate from that of FOP and PANO and, for the same reas ons, they could not intervene as of right or permissively. With respect to OIPM, the Courtdetermined that the office lacked juridical capacity under L ouisiana law and thus was le gally incapable of intervening. Finally, because Hutson failed to provide the Court with any argument regarding her individual interest and how any such interest would be impaired as a result of the proposed Consent Decree, the Court determined that she could not intervene as of right or permissively. Accordingly, the Court denied the motions to intervene on August 31, 2012.64 By the same order, the Court further provided that it would allow the Proposed Intervenors to present
62 R. Doc. 102. 63 With respect to FOP and PANO, organizations seeking to protect and represent the interests of NOPD officers, the Court underscored that “as it is currently written, the proposed Consent Decree in no way modifies the Civil Service system for NOPD officers.” R. Doc. 102 at p. 18. Nevertheless, the Court provided that “[i]f changes are proposed to any NOPD policies that may conflict with the Civil Service rules and procedures, FOP and/or PANO may move to intervene for the limited purpose of asserting their Civil Service property rights.” See R. Doc. 102 at pp. 21-22. The Court recognizes that PANO has reurged its argument that the Court should permit it to intervene in this case. See R. Doc. 165. The Court will address PANO’s arguments by separate order. FOP and CUC have appealed the Court’s order denying their motions to intervene. See R. Docs. 118 and 144. 64 R. Doc. 102.
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 15 of 48
live testimony and documentary evidence at the Fairness Hearing and would permit the Proposed Intervenors to submit questions for the Court to ask the United States a nd the City.65 In addition, the Court created a pu blicly-accessible website where pleadings, motions, orders, public comments, the City’s Request for Proposals to serve a s Consent Decree Court Monitor, and copies of the pr oposed Consent Decree could be downloaded without charge and without the need to access the Eastern District of Louisiana’s CM/ECF system.66
Prior to the Fairness Hearing, on Septembre14, 2012, the Parties filed a joint motion to supplement their previously filed motionfor approval of the proposed Consent Decree6.7 The Parties attached to the moti on a re vised copy of the proposed Consent Decree containing a small number of changes to th e version of the prop osed Consent Decree submitted to the Court on July 24, 20126.8 The Parties informed the Court that they agreed to the changes reflected in the revised proposed Consent Decree.69
On September 21, 2012, the Court conducted the Fairness Hearing. 70 The United States, the City, and the Proposed Intervenor s presented six hours of live testimony and
65 R. Doc. 102 at p. 25. 66 See http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/Consent/consent.htm. The Court continues to regularly update the website to provide notice of case activity to the public. 67 R. Doc. 114. 68 R. Docs. 114-1 and 114-2. 69 R. Doc. 114. 70 R. Doc. 132.
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 16 of 48
documentary evidence to the Court.71 OIPM presented the live testimony of Hutson and Jasmine Groves, and OIPM’s Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence. 72 FOP presented the
live testimony of Sergeant Christopher Landry and Dr. Bart Leger, and FOP’s Exhibits 1 through 11 were admitted into evidence. 73 CUC presented the live testimony of W.C.
Johnson, Malcolm Suber, Randolph J. Scott, Cynthia Parker and Terry Simpson, and CUC’s Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into evidence74. Counsel for PANO made a presentation
to the Court on the organization’s behalf. The United States presented the live testimony
of Santos Alvarado, Delmy Palencia, Alfred Marshall, Tania Tetlow, and Ira Thomas, and the United States’ Exhibits 1 through 7 were admitted into evidence.75 In addition, 158
public comments from individua ls and orga nizations were submitted for the Court’s consideration.76
Following the United States’ presentation,counsel for the City addressed the Court
to underscore that the proposed Consent Decree was “the most extensive and far reaching
in this nation’s history” a nd that it would “have a lasting effect in transforming the New
71 See R. Doc. 132 and its attachments. Roy Austin, Jr., Emily Gunston, Letten, Christy Lopez, Stephen Parker, Corey Sanders, and Jude Volek appeared on behalf of the United States; Erica Beck, Cortizas, Brian Capitelli, Ralph Capitelli, Churita Hansell, and Sharonda Williams (“Williams”) appeared on behalf of the City; C. Theodore Alpaugh, III, and Claude A. Schlesinger appeared on behalf of FOP and Powers; Eric J. Hessler appeared on behalf of PANO and Glasser; William P. Quigley appeared on behalf of CUC; and John S. Williams appeared on behalf of OIPM and Hutson.
72 R. Docs. 132-1 to 132-2. 73 R. Docs. 132-3 to 132-16. 74 R. Docs. 132-17 to 132-24, and 132-37. Exhibits 3 and 6 were admitted into evidence with redactions agreed to by counsel for the City and CUC. Exhibit 8 was admitted as a proffer and ordered placed under seal. R. Doc. 132 at p. 2. 75 R. Docs. 132-25 to 132-32. 76 See R. Docs. 58 to 100, 105-106, 111-112, 141 and 145. The comments provided by CUC, PANO, FOP and OIPM are filed in the record at R. Docs. 66, 85, 86 and 141, and 92, respectively.
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 17 of 48
Orleans Police Department and make [the] ctiy a safer place to live, work, and visit.7”7 The City then introduced Exhibits A, B, and C and the exhibits were admitted into evidence.78 The City also presented the testimony of Chief Serpas, who stated he felt “very comfortable that [the proposed Consent Decree was] fair, reasonable, and adequate.”79 “Negotiating is difficult and not everybody gets their way,” Chief Serpas observed8.0 “But in my impression having been a police chief . .. for 12 years,” he continued, the proposed Consent Decree “is a document that holds [the NOPD] to the standards [the NOPD] should [observe] and it holds [the NOPD] to the [standards] the community” expects. 81 Chief Se rpas urged the Court to approve the proposed Consent Decr ee because, in his opinion, what the NOPD “needs more than anything and what this co mmunity needs more than anything is the independence of [the] [C]ourt and the independence of [the Court’s] monitor who says to the people of New Orleans thi s de partment has improved.” 82 Following Chief Serpas’ testimony, the Court held the hearing open in the event the Cour t concluded it needed additional evidence or testimony to determine whether the proposed Consent Decree was fair, adequate, and reasonable.83
In the months following the Fairness Hearign, the Court reviewed hundreds of pages
77 R. Doc. 208 at p. 181. 78 R. Docs. 132-33 to 132-36. 79 R. Doc. 208 at p. 193. 80 R. Doc. 208 at p. 193. 81 R. Doc. 208 at p. 193. 82 R. Doc. 208 at p. 198. 83 R. Doc. 208 at p. 201.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 18 of 48
of public comments regardingthe proposed Consent Decree.84 The Court conducted status conferences with the Parties to discuss concerns raised in the public comments. 85 The Parties assured the Court that the concerns expressed would be given due consideration as policies and procedures were developed and implemented.
After carefully considering the proposed Consent Decree,86 the comments received from the public and the Proposed Intervenors, the testimony and evidence presented at the September 21, 2012 Fairness Hearing, the Partiesr’epresentations, and the fact that the City committed adequate funding to implement theproposed Consent Decree, the Court found that the proposed Consent Decree, as amended, was fair, adequate and reasonable, and was not the product of fraud, collusion, or the like.87
At a January 11, 2013 status conference, the Court informed 88 the Parties that it would approve the proposed Consent Decree filed by the Parties on July 24, 2012, 89 as amended by cha nges shown on the Parties’ Errata Sheet filed on September 14, 2012 (“Consent Decree),90 and would enter the Consent Decree as a judgment of the Court.91 At that status conference, the City orally informed the Court that it wished to withdraw from
84 See R. Docs. 58 to 100, 105-106, 111-112, 141 and 145. 85 See R. Docs. 139, 152, 153, and 161. 86 The Court reviewed and considered both the July 24, 2012 and September 14, 2012 versions of the proposed Consent Decree. 87 R. Doc. 159. 88 R. Doc. 161. 89 R. Doc. 2-1. 90 R. Doc. 159. 91 R. Doc. 160.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 19 of 48
the Consent Decree and that it intended to filae motion seeking relief from judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure9.2 Following the status conference, the Court formally approved the Consent Decree and entere d it as a judgme nt of the Court.93 In its order explaining the Court’s reasons for approvin g the Consent Decree and its minute entry memorializing the status conference, the Court noted the City’s objection and established a procedure allowi ng the City to file a wri tten motion no later than Friday, January 31, 2013.94 The City timely filed its motion to vacate95 and the motion is now before the Court for decision.
Law and Analysis The City moves to vacate the Cosnent Decreepursuant to Rule 60(b) on five grounds. First, the City complains thatthe DOJ waited to disclose thecosts to fix the Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”)96 until after the Parties signed the Co nsent Decree at issue in this case. Second, former assistant U.S. Attorney Perricone served as the DOJ’slocal “point person” in New Orleans and participated in negotiations for the Consent Decree. According to the City, Perricone’s surreptitious commenting on nola.com 97 articles regarding the Mayo r, Chief Serpas, the proposed Consent Decree, the need for a Court-appointed Monitor,
92 R. Doc. 161. 93 R. Doc. 160. 94 R. Doc. 159 at p. 9. 95 R. Doc. 175. 96 Litigation regarding whether the conditions at OPP are constitutionally sufficient is also pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. See Lashawn Jones, et al. v. Marlin Gusman, et al., Civ. Action No. 12-859 (E.D. La.) (“Jones”). Jones is allotted to another section of this Court. 97 This news website, accessible at www.nola.com, is affiliated with The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 20 of 48
secondary employment, and the need for the DOJ to participate in the reform process poisoned public opinion against the NOPD and the Consent Decree. Third, the City contends that the Consent Decree’s terms regarding secondary employment may run afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA,” 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) and expose the City to legal liability for FLSA violations. Fourth, the City maintains that, under Louisiana law, the Consent Decree is not a valid contractbecause the City withdrew its consent to the agreement and any prior consent is vitiated by error, duress and/or fraud. Fifth, the City complains that the Co urt “failed to follow th e rules of civil procedure and evidence in entering its order approving the proposed Consent Decree.” 98 The Court examines each argument in turn.
Rule 60(b) provides that a court, “[o]n motoi n and just terms,” may “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise , or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reason able diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59( b); ( 3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extri nsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or a pplying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). The purpose of Rule 60 (b) “is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment with the interest of thecourt in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.” Hesling v. CS X Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005). As the moving party, the City has the burden to sh ow why the Court should vacate the Consent Decree. League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 438
98 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 27.
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 21 of 48
(5th Cir. 2011). The determination of whether the City has satisfied its burden lies within this Court’s sound discretion. Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010).
Granting relief under Rule 60 is “an ex traordinary remedy whi ch should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004);see also Pease v. Pakhoed, 980 F.2d 995, 998 (5thCir. 1993) (“Courts are disinclined to disturb judgments under the aegis of Rule 60(b).”). Consequently, the “scope of relief that may be obtained under Rule 60(b) is strictly limited.” 12 M oore’s Federal Practice § 60.02 (3d ed. 2010). A motion to vacate a judgment is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offreed or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
A consent decree is a final judgment, ev en t hough i t is a consensual judgment resulting from an agreement between the parties, rather than one rendered on the merits following trial. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jai,l 502 U.S. 367, 391 (1992). As a result, a consent decree is still “subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees,” including Rule 60. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 378. Thus, as with judgments obtained after adversarial proceedings that proceeded throug h trial, policy consid erations do not favor setting aside a consensual judgment on a Rule 60(b) motion99. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.22 (3d ed. 2013).
In order to obtain relief from a judgmentunder Rule 60(b), the movant must show
99 By contrast, many circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, are more liberal in setting aside default judgments pursuant to Rule 60 because a judgment on the merits is preferred to a judgment obtained due to a default. See, e.g., Harrell v. DCS Equip. Leasing Corp., 951 F.2d 1453, 1459 (5th Cir. 1992) (“This court applies Rule 60(b) ‘most liberally to judgments in default . . . [because] . . . [t]runcated proceedings of this sort are not favored.’ ”) (quoting Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 403 (5th Cir. 1981)) (brackets and ellipses in original).
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 22 of 48
he has a meritorious claim or defense such that the presiding court is convinced that vacating the judgment, and retrying the matter, is not an empty exercise. Pease, 980 F.2d at 998 (“It is well established that Rule 60(b) requires the movant to demonstrate that he possesses a meritorious cause of action.”). However, “[t]he requirement that a [moving] party . . . must show a ‘meritorious’ claim or defense . . . does not mean that the moving party must show that he or she is likely to prevail.” 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.24 (3d ed. 2010). Rather, “the movant must make allegations that, if established at trial, would constitute a valid claim or defense.” 12 M oore’s Federal Practice § 60.24 (emphasis in original). Consequently, conclusory statements that a claim or defense is meritorious are insufficient. Pease, 980 F.2d at 998; 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.24.
I. Unrelated Litigation Regarding OPP: Relief Reques ted Under Rules 60(b)(2), (5), and (6)
First, the City argues the Court should vacate the Consent Decree due to developments in u nrelated liti gation regarding OPP, the jail facility serving Orleans Parish.100 Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff of OrleansParish (“Sheriff Gusman” or “the Sheriff”), is tasked with overseeing OPP. 101 On April 2, 2012, a putati ve class of men, women and adolescents incarcerated at OPP filed a complaint 102 i n the U.S. District Court for the
100 New Orleans is located in Orleans Parish. Pursuant to Louisiana law, the City has certain obligations to fund OPP. The exact scope and nature of the City’s legal duties regarding OPP is at issue in Jones. See infra pp. 23-25
101 Pursuant to Louisiana law, the Sheriff is the “keeper of the public jail of [Orleans] [P]arish, and shall by all lawful means preserve the peace and apprehend all disturbers thereof, and other public offenders.” La. Rev. Stat. § 15:704.
102 The Jones plaintiffs allege that [i]ndividuals housed at the jail are at imminent risk of serious harm. Rapes, sexual assaults, and beatings are common pal ce throughout the facility. Violence regularly occurs at the hands of sheriffs’ deputies, as well as oth er prisoners. The facility is full of h omemade knives, or “shanks.” People living with serious mental illnesses lang uish without treatment, left
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 23 of 48

Eastern District of Louisiana alleging

that the y a re subjected to abusive and

unconstitutional conditions of confinement at OPP (“Jones”).103 Neither the United States

nor the City was named as a party in theJones plaintiffs’ original complaint.104 The Jones

Court permitted the United States to intervene as a party on September 25, 2012, and

granted Sheriff Gusman’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the City

on October 1, 2 012.105 The Sheriff’s third-party complaint alleges that the City “is

responsible for funding jail facilities of th e Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office pursuant to

various provisions of Louisiana law.”106 To “the extent that the Court should conclude that

the Sheriff must provide prospective relief in the form of additional staffing, training, care,

treatment or other services to Orleans Parish inmates which will necessitate funding over

and above that currently provided by the City of New Orleans,” the Sheriff’s third-pa rty

complaint argues, “judgment should also be entreed in favor of the Sheriff ordering the City

vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse. These conditions have created a public safety crisis that affects the entire City of New Orle ans. The jail is oversized, understaffed, and Sheriff Gusman’s classification and se curity policies and practices are dangerously deficient. The men and women housed there are at constant ri sk of physical harm due to the presence of contraband and weapons i n th e facility, wh ich, coupled wi th th e absence of meani ngful mental health services, places the lives of people incarcerated there in immediate jeopardy.
Jones, R. Doc. 1 at p. 2.
103 With respect to facts the Court has not personally observed while presiding over this case, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court, on its own volition, to take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), (c)(1). According to Fifth Circuit precedent, “a court may take judicial notice of a ‘document filed in another court . . . to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.’ ” Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp., 162 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992)) (ellipses in original). Given the City’s repeated references to the OPP Consent Decree, the Court must take judicial notice of the pleadings filed in Jones for the limited purpose of tracing the procedural history of the OPP litigation vis-à-vis the procedural history of this litigation.
104 Jones, R. Doc. 1.
105 Jones, R. Docs. 69, 70, 74, 75, and 76.
106 Jones, R. Docs. 75 at p. 3 and 76 at p. 3.
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 24 of 48
of New Orleans to pay the Sheriff the full cost . . . of providing such prospective relief.”107
Sheriff Gusman, the United States, and the Jones plaintiffs reached a settlement in
December 2012, which they memorialized ina proposed consent decree (the “OPP Consent
Decree”)108 and presented to the court for approval via joint motion on December 11 ,
2012.109 The City110 contends it “was not provided with the [United States’] estimate of the
cost of implementing the OPP Consent Decree until one month after the City signed” the
NOPD Consent Decree, even though the UnitedStates allegedly had this information prior
to July 24, 2012.111 Specifically, the City alleges that the United States committed a “glaring
misrepresentation” by withholding its “assessment” that “the City would be required to pay
$34.5 million dollars112 to fund the OPP consent decree.1”13 Had it “known in July 2012 that
107 Jones, R. Docs. 75 at p. 3 and 76 at p. 3. 108 For the sake of clarity, throughout the remainder of this order where it is necessary to distinguish between the OPP Consent Decree at issue in Jones and the NOPD Consent Decree at issue in this case, the Court uses the terms “OPP Consent Decree” and “NOPD Consent Decree,” respectively. Unless the Court indicates otherwise, any generic reference to the “Consent Decree” means the NOPD Consent Decree. 109 Jones, R. Docs. 101 and 183. In accordance with a court order directing the City to respond to this motion, the City argued that, although “it would not be appropriate for the City to comment in detail on the pending motion[]” because plaintiffs had not alleged that any action by the City had caused the supposed unconstitutional conditions at OPP, “applicable Louisiana statutes are clear that it is the Sheriff’s responsibility (and not the City[’s]) to ensure that Orleans Parish Prison is operated and maintained in a constitutional manner.” Jones, R. Doc. 109 at pp. 6 and 14. 110 The Court recognizes that the City is not a party to the OPP Consent Decree in Jones. See Jones, R. Docs. 101 and 183. 111 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 19. 112 The City has not drawn the Court’s attention to any evidence indicating when and by what medium the United States provided this estimate to the City. The United States maintains that this $34.5 million figure is derived from an August 22, 2012 e-mail sent by Laura Coon (“Coon”), a DOJ attorney, to Cortizas and Williams, attorneys for the City. The e-mail states in pertinent part:
Good morning Richard [Cortizas] and Sharonda [Williams]:
To start the conversation regarding a reasonable compromise dollar amount for FY13 City funding of OPP pending staf fing analyses by the monitor called for by the [proposed OPP
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 25 of 48
a few months later the DOJ would be seeking at least an additional $12.5 million dollars”
more than the 2012 OPP budget, the City maintains, “it would not have signed the NOPD
consent decree.”114 As a result, the City asserts th at the Co urt should vacate the NOPD
Consent Decree due to “newly discovered evidence, changed circumstances, [or] any other
reason that justifies relief,”115 because it is “totally unworkable” for the City to pay the cost
of implementing the NOPD and OPP consent decrees at the same time.116
A. Unrelated Litigation Regarding OPP: Rule 60(b)(2)
Rule 60(b)(2) permits a Court to grant reliedf ue to “ newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b).” The new evidence actually must be relevant to the matter the Court is
being asked to reconsider. Indeed, the mo vant must demonstrate he “exercised d ue
Consent Decree], what about $34.5 million? That is in betweenwhat the City paid this year pre-consent decree ($22.5 M) and what the Sher iff is requesting post-consent decree ($45 M).”
See R. Docs. 184 at p. 30 and 184-34 at p. 2. The United States maintains that it “mentioned $34.5 million not as a cost estimate, but rather as a useful starting point for negotiations over funding for OPP given that the figure was the midpoint betweenOPP’s $22 million operating budget in 2012 and the OPP Sheriff’s request for $45 million for fiscal year 2013.” R. Doc. 184 at p. 30. Consequently, according to the United States “[t]here is no justification for the City’s inexplicable claim that the United States withheld any cost information from the City.” R. Doc. 184 at p. 30. The Court observes that even assuming arguendo the United States withheld its cost estimate from the City, the City representsthat it was in possession of this information “one month” after it signed the Consent Decree on July 24, 20 12. R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 19. Thus, the City had this knowledge at the time it continued to urge the Court, via joint motion with the United States, to enter the Consent Decree. See R. Doc. 114. The City only reversed course several months after it allegedly learned of the OPP Consent Decree’s purported $34.5 million price tag.
113 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 29. 114 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 5. 115 The United States has interpreted the City’s arguments regarding OPP as invoking Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (5). R. Doc. 184 at p. 32. However, as the Court reads the City’s motion, the City appears to be seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), (5), and (6). As a result, the Court has analyzed the City’s arguments regarding OPP under Rule 60(b)(2), (5), and (6). The Court notes that the result would not change if the Court also analyzed the City’s arguments regarding OPP under Rule 60(b)(1). 116 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 18 (capitalization removed) and 20.
25

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 26 of 48
diligence in obtaining the information; and (2t)hat the evidence is material and controlling and clearly would have produced a different result if present before the original judgment.” Hesling, 396 F.3d at 639 (internal quotation marks an d c itation omitted). These requirements must be strictly met for relief to be granted.See Ag Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida, 512 F.2d 141, 143 (5th Cir. 1975), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 425 U.S. 273 (1976).
The City’s argument that it had no knowledge of the potential cost ramifications for the OPP Consent Decree at the time it signed the NOPD Consent Decree is patently false. At least as early as July 19, 2012, several d ays before the City signed the NOPD Consent Decree on July 24, 2012, the City was on noticethat the Sheriff intended to request “$22.5 million of ‘new’ estimated costs” that would “bring[] the to tal budget [for OPP] to $45 million” for 2013.117 Thus, this evidence regarding the NOPD Consent Decree is not “newly discovered” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2).In addition, even ifthese additional costs were “newly discovered,” the City has not provided the Court w ith any evidence that, despite acting with due diligence, it was unableto obtain such information prior to signing the NOPD Consent Decree. Hesling, 396 F.3d at 639. Furthermore, while the Court understands the Ci ty’s argument that the ultimate cost of the OPP Consent Decree is relevant to this case in a general sense because the City has finite resources, Jones is an entirely separate proceeding from this case. Finally, as the Court has previously noted, “inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, in
117 See R. Doc. 184-10. This document is an e-mail from the Sheriff’s counsel to Coon and Williams. The United States attached the e-mail as an exhibit to its memorandum in opposition to the City’s motion. The Court observes that the City’s reply memorandum does not address this exhibit whatsoever.
26

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 27 of 48
the context of this case, the outcome of theJones litigation is not “material and controlling” such that this Court should grant relief under Rule 60(b)(2). Hesling, 396 F.3d at 639.
B. Unrelated Litigation Regarding OPP: Rule 60(b)(5) The City further relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), to argue that the Court should vacate the NOPD Consent Decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) due to changed circumstances because the City was not previously aware of the OPP Consent Decree’s price tag.118 Rule 60(b)(5) permits a court to grant relief where “the judgment hasbeen satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been revresed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Litigation in Rufo began in 1971 “when inmates sued the Suffolk County sheriff, the Commissioner of Correction for the State of Massachusetts, the mayor of Boston, and nine city councilors, claiming that inmates not yet convicted of the crimes charged against them were being held underunconstitutional conditions at what was then the Suffolk County Jail.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 371. The jail facility, originally erected in 1848, confined inmates in large tiers of barred cells and was a “relic of the past” that had to replaced. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail v. Eisenstadt , 360 F. Supp. 676, 687 (D. Mass. 1973). In 1979, the parties entered into a consent decree mandating the construction of a new jail facility containing 309 “[s]ingle occupancy rooms,” a design which “was based on a projected decline in inmate population.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 375-76. Construction of the new facility finally began in 1987, and by that time the county’s growing inmate population necessitated more cells to accommodate the additional prisoners. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 376. In 1989, while the jail was still under construction, the Suffolk County sheriff moved to
118 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 18-19.
27

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 28 of 48
modify the consent decree due to changed ci rcumstances to permit double-bunking to increase the jail’s capacity; the district court refused to grant the request. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 376. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that modification of consent decrees in prison reform litigation may be appropriate pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) when the moving party can “establish that a significant changein facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitalby tailored to the changed circumstance.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 392.
Consequently, following Rufo, the moving party seekingto modify a consent decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) must “show that the change in circumstance is significant, and not merely that it is no longer convenient to live with the decree’s terms.” City of Boerne, 659 F.3d at 437 (citation omitted). If the Citymeets this standard by showing significantly changed factual or legal c ircumstances, it must then demonstrate that “the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383.
The Court, given the facts of this case, does not find the City is entitled to any relief based on the standard set forth in Rufo. Just six months, not se veral years, have passed between the date the City signed and presented the NOPD Consent Decree to the Court and the date the City filed its motion to vacate. The City has not demonstrated that any factual or legal circumstances have “significantly changed” such that enforcing the Consent Decree is no longer equitable. No evidence is bfeore the Court showing the NOPD Consent Decree at issue here is itself more expensive to implement now compared to when it was signed. Moreover, even if the costs of the unrelated OPP Consent Decree were a factor the Court should consider, the City has failed to come forward with any e vidence contradicting the United States’ proof that the City was on notice of the OPP Consent Decree’s cost on July
28

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 29 of 48
19, 2012. As a result, at most, the City’s argument regarding the cost of the OPP Consent Decree amounts to a claim that enforcing th e Consent D ecree as written is no longer convenient because the City anticipates that, atsome undetermined point in the future, the City will incur additional financial liabiilty. Finally, the Court observes thaRt ufo permitted modification of a consent decree. By contrast, theCity urges the Court to vacate the NOPD Consent Decree. Rufo and its progeny do not mandate the relief requested.
C. Unrelated Litigation Regarding OPP: Rule 60(b)(6) Next, the City submits that the Court should vacate the NOPD Consent Decree due to the United States’ allegedly belated di sclosures regarding the OPP Consent Decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). This subsection , which permits a court to grant a motion to vacate for “any other reason thatjustifies relief,” is a “catchall” that has been referred to as a court’s “grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice.” Rocha, 619 F.3d at 400 (quoting Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 311 (5th Cir. 2010)). Nevertheless, a court may invoke Rule 60(b)(6) only for “any other reaosn than those containedin the preceding five enumerated grounds” and only in “extraordinary circumstances.”Rocha, 619 F.3d at 400. As the Court has described above, the City was aware of the Sheriff’s demands with respect to the OPP Consent Decree when it entered into, and repeatedly urged this Court to approve, the NOPD Consent De cree. The City’s current displeasure regarding the OPP Consent D ecree does not constitute extraord inary circumstances sufficient for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). II. Perricone: Relief Requested Under Rule 60(b)(3) Second, the City argues that the Court should vacate the Consent Decree because Perricone was a member of the DOJ team that negotiated the agreement. Perricone’s
29

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 30 of 48

involvement, according to the City, “undermin ed the integrity and confidentiality of the

entire negotiati on pr ocess leading to the Consent Decree” and ultimately constitutes

misconduct within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(3). 119 The City concludes that “[s]uch

conduct cannot be overlooked and warrants a grant of the City’s Motion.”120

In March 2012, Perricone, a former high-r anking assistant U.S. Attorney for the

Eastern District of Louisiana, was unmaskedas the author of comments posted on nola.com

under the handle “Henry L. Mencken1951.”121 Perricone’s prolific nola.com comments are

now a matter of general public knowledge in the Eastern District of Louisiana and have

affected many criminal investigations and proceedings, including, most notably, the

“Danziger Bridge” case.122 Perriconepublically admitted he was Henry L. Mencken1951 and

resigned on March 20, 2012.123 Other nola.com identities eventually linked to Perricone

after March 2012 include “legacyusa,” “dramatis personae” and “campstblue.” 124 The

United States does not dispute that Perri cone authored the stat ements the City has

submitted for the Court’s review.

The City asserts that Perricone, who app

lied f or the position of NOPD

Superintendent in 2010 but was not selected, had a “hidden agenda” to “poison the well”

119 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 17. 120 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 18. 121 R. Doc. 175-3 at pp. 1-10. 122 R. Doc. 175-3 at pp. 1-10; see also United States of America v. Kenneth Bowen, et al., Criminal Action No. 10-204 (E.D. La.) (“Bowen”), R. Doc. 1070. 123 R. Doc. 175-3 at pp. 1-10; see also Bowen, R. Doc. 1070 at p. 3. 124 R. Doc. 175-3 at pp. 1-10; see also Bowen, R. Doc. 1070.
30

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 31 of 48
of public opinion against the NOPD. 125 The City notes that Perricone posted about his desire to become NOPD Superintendent,126 Chief Serpas’ credentials,127 his dislike of paid details,128 and his belief that federal supervision of the NOPD was necessary.129 Perricone
also participated in the DOJ’s 2010 investigation of the NOPD and, according to the City,
insisted on including provisions in the Consent Decree causing a wholesale overhaul of the paid detail system.130 The City argues that Perricone’s “relentless [posting on nola .com]
against Superintendent Serpas and the NOPD, wihch ran from the transitional period of the
Landrieu administration in February 2010 until he was unmasked in March 2012, was
clearly aimed at prejudicing the initial DOJ investigation ofthe NOPD as well as the entire Consent Decree process.”131 The United States responds that the City has not demonstrated
how Perricone’s involvement in fact prejudiced the City during negotiations. The United
States also underscores that Perricone’s characterization of the paid detail system was
125 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 6-7. 126 See, e.g., R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 6 (“MITCH: GET LETTEN OR ONE OF HIS BOYS OR GIRLS TO BE THE NEXT CHIEF!!!!!!” – legacyusa, March 9, 2010. at 4:13 p.m.). 127 See, e.g., R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 7 (“Ronal Serpas and Mitch Landrieu are the Les Miles of city executives. Alll [sic] they can do is TALK, TALK, TALK TALK. Whenever it gets bad, they run to the camera and microphones. TALK, TALK, TALK. This the political solution to a massive social problem they are incapable of solving. NO MORE NEWS CONFERENCES. Get the job done!!! ACT!!!” – Henry L. Mencken1951, January 14, 2012, 8:22 a.m.). 128 See, e.g., R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 8 (“MORE DETAILS!!!!!! You want nice cops—you have to pay.” – legacyusa, March 9, 2010, at 7:14 a.m.). 129 See, e.g., R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 9 (“While these heros [sic] are making promises, where is the consent decree they promised? You can’t have reform without the Justice Department in this city. I financially support Mitch, but I beginning to have second thoughts. SHUT UP AND PRODUCE!!!!” – November 22, 2011.). 130 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 17-18. Perricone, the City insists, is the source for the line in the DOJ’s report labeling paid details as the “aorta of corruption” within the NOPD. R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 18. The DOJ does not dispute this assertion. R. Doc. 184 at p. 12. 131 R. Doc. 175-1 at p. 18.
31

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 32 of 48
included in the DOJ’s report “because it wa s entirely consistent with the facts regarding paid details that were confirmed by numerousmembers of the public, NOPD officers, local judges and federal law e nforcement officials during the Civil Rights Division’s extensive investigation of NOPD.”132
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment due to fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconductof an adverse party. A party making a Rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, “(1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully andfairly presenting his case.”133 Hesling, 396 F.3d at 641 (citation omitted). “Rule 60(b)(3) is aimed at judgmenst which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect. The rule is remedial and should be liberally construe d.” Hesling, 396 F.3d at 641 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
To satisfy its burden under Rule 60(b)(3),the City argues that Perricone’s nola.com comments prevented the City from fully and fairlypresenting its case. That is, because the City did not know of Perricone’s clandestine behavior,134 the United States unfairly obtained the City’s agreement to enter into the Consen t Decree and that, as a result, the City was unable to negotiate terms favorable to the City , especially wi th respect to paid details. Perricone’s identity as Henry L. Mencken1951 was publically revealed before the en d of
132 R. Doc. 184 at p. 12. 133 Because the Court finds, as explained infra at pp.33-34, the City has failed to demonstrate how Perricone’s alleged misconduct prevented the City from fully and fairly presenting its case, there is no need for the Court to determine whether Perricone’s behavior is misconduct imputed to the United States. 134 Failing to disclose information may be a basis for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion. See Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1339 (1978) (holding that a plaintiff could obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3) when a defendant failed to respond to an interrogatory even though the defendant had knowledge it had possession of a document arguably responsive to the interrogatory).
32

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 33 of 48
March 2012, Perricone immediately resigned from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and, at the same time, he was removed from the DOJ teamnegotiating the Consent Decree. The City, fully aware that Perricone was Henry L. Mencken1951, nevertheless moved forward with the proposed Consent Decree rather than abandnoing its collaboration with the DOJ. After three additional months of negotiation fo llowing Perricone’s resig nation, the Parties presented a proposed Consent De cree to the Court. Despite having actual notice of the nature of Perricone’s online activities, at least to the extent he used the moniker Henry L. Mencken1951 through March 2012, the City knowingly continuedto negotiate the terms of the Consent Decree and ultimately pressed theCourt for its approval. The City’s behavior belies its assertion that Perricone’s comments enabled the United States to unfairly obtain the City’s agreement to enter into the Consent Decree.
Furthermore, the City has not identified any language Perricone or any other DOJ attorney allegedly inserted into the Consent Decree – either before or after March 2012 – that would have been omitted but for Perricone’s involvement in the negotiation process. Indeed, with respect to terms regarding paiddetails specifically, both the Mayor and Chief Serpas have acknowledged that the pa id detail system contributes to the NOPD’s longstanding problems and is in great need of reform. 135 Likewise, the DOJ’s March 16, 2011 report includes a substantial discussion ofthe problems associated with paid details. The City itself represented to the Court, well a fter P erricone’s identity as Henry L. Mencken1951 was revealed,136 that the report contains a “more than adequate factual rceord
135 See supra pp. 7-8 136 The City repeatedly points to Perricone’s “aorta of corruption” phrase in the DOJ’s report, see R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 17, as evidence that Perricone helped author, and thereby biased, the report. Perricone, as Henry L. Mencken1951, did in fact use this phrase. See, e.g., nola.com comment at R. Doc. 175-3 at p. 167
33

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 34 of 48
supporting the legitimacy” of the Consent Decree’s terms.137
Finally, the City’s assertion that it di d not learn P erricone was posting under the
name legacyusa until some time in Decemb er 2 012 or January 2013 is also not
dispositive.138 While the City claims it did not know the full extent of legacyusa’s vitriol
toward the City, the NOPD, the Mayor, and Chief Serpas prior to the end of 2011329,the City
still cannot demonstrate how Perricone’s legacyusa comments allowed the United States
to unfa irly o btain the City’s assent or iden tify what, if any, terms of would have been
omitted or substantia lly changed but for Perri cone’s involvement. In sum, the City has
failed to satisfy its burden under Rule 60(b)(3) to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that Perricone’s antics140 prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case.
III. Secondary Employment and the FLSA: Relief Requested Under Rule 60(b)(1)
Third, the City argues that the Consent Decree provisions regarding paid details –
(“When the DOJ reported in March that the detail system inside the NOPD was the aorta of corruption, I thought it was hyperbole. But not anymore. Since then, we have learned how endemic the outside detail system worked and operated inside our police department. . . . The DOJ can’t get here soon enough.” – Henry L. Mencken1951, August 27, 2011, at 10:16 a.m.). Nevertheless, the Court observes that Perricone had been unmasked as Henry L. Mencken1951 well before the City relied on the DOJ’s report to urge the Court to approve the NOPD Consent Decree.
137 R. Docs. 2 at p. 5 and 2-1 at pp. 6-7. 138 The Court observes it became a matter of general public knowledge in the Eastern District of Louisiana in August 2012 that Perricone was posting under the name “legacyusa” due to an extensive confessional interview Perricone gave to New Orleans Magazine. That interview was memorialized in the article “Sal Perricone’s Next Chapter,” which was published in the magazine’s August 1, 2012 edition. During the interview, Perricone confirmed that he commented on nola.com under several monikers in addition to Henry L. Mencken1951 – including legacyusa. See R. Doc. 175-3 at pp. 3-10; see also Bowen, R. Doc. 1070 at pp. 10-11. 139 R. Doc. 202 at pp. 8-9. The City argues it did not know about Perricone’s writings as legacyusa because legacyusa’s comments were not retrievable via nola.com until the end of 2012. 140 Again, the Court declines to determine whether Perricone’s misconduct may be imputed to the United States because such determination is unnecessary. The Court underscores it in no way condones Perricone’s behavior.
34

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 35 of 48
referred to as “secondary employment” in the Consent Decree – violate the FLSA and any belief to the contrary is “mistaken” within t he m eaning of R ule 60(b)(1). Th e C ity’s reasoning as to why the Consent Decree violatesthe FLSA is as follows: the Consent Decree requires the City to establish an independent Secondary Employment Coordinating Office (“Coordinating Office”) to manage and su pervise officers’ secondary employment; the Coordinating Office’s vast control over officers’ off-duty hours will cause the City to be the officers’ employer for such off-duty hours; the FLSA obligates an employer to pay overtime for hours worked above a certain threshold; tehCity refuses to pay officers FLSA-mandated overtime for hours worked for secondary empolyment; thus, the Consent Decree orders the City to violate the FLSA. In essence, the City argues that it was incorrect, at the time it signed the NOPD Consent Decree, in beli eving the secondary employment provisions complied with the FLSA. As a result, the Cityfurther argues that the Court, relying on the Parties’ assertions that their agreement was legally sound, thus erroneously entered the Consent Decree as its own judgment.
In the Fifth Circuit, Rule 60(b)(1) “may be invoked for the correction of judicial error, but only to rectify an obvious error of law, apparent on the record. Thus, it may be employed when the judgment obviously conflicts with a clear statutory mandate or when the judicial error involves a fundamental misconception of the law.” Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040, 1043 (5th Cir. 1987) (foontotes and internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, the error to be addressed must be one that is so obvious that the trial judge can easily recognize and correct it, thereb y maki ng an appeal an otherwise waste of appellate resources. Hill, 827 F.2d at 1043 (“[A] Rule 60(b)(1) motion filed within the time for appeal saves the parties and the court th e time and expense of a needless appeal.”);
35

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 36 of 48
Alvestad v. Monsanto Co. , 671 F.2d 90 8, 912-13 (5th Cir. 1982). The Fifth Circuit is “insistent that Rule 60(b) is not a substitutefor the ordinary method of redressing judicial error – appeal.” Alvestad, 671 F.2d at 912.
The City relies onIbarra v. Texas Employment Commission, 823 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1987) as authority for the Court to vacate the Consent Decree under Rule 60(b)(1) due to mistake. In Ibarra, the Texas Employment Commission (“TEC”) entered into a consent decree with a plaintiff class ofaliens defining which categories of aliens were “permanently residing in the United States under c olor of law” and thus were eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the TEC pursuant to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”). Ibarra, 823 F.2d at 874. During negotiations of such consent decree, the TEC sought to ensure the agreement complied with the U.S. Department o f Labor’s (the “DOL”) interpretation of the FUTA so thatTexas’ employment security program would be consistent with federal law. T he TEC, relying on the DOL’s interpretation of the FUTA, agreed to the consent d ecree’s terms. Ho wever, the DOL later changed its position, informed the TEC that it considered the consent decree inconsistent with federal law, and warned that it might institute compliance pro ceedings. As a result, the TEC moved to withdraw its consent to the agreement. The dsitrict court refused the request and gave final approval of the consent decree. Ibarra, 82 3 F .2d at 874. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the TEC’s mistake was a valid reason for vacating the TEC’s agreement to the consent decree. Ibarra, 823 F.2d at 879.
Ibarra’s facts are inapposite to the case before the Co urt. I n Ibarra, the DOL reversed its position and advised the TEC that it considered the decree inconsistent with federal law. The TEC notified the district court of this fact. Ibarra, 823 F.2d at 876. Thus,
36

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 37 of 48
the party seeking to withdraw from the consent decree in Ibarra offered un assailable evidence that it had materially erred in its in terpretation of applicable law relating to an issue central to the agreement. Ibarra, 823 F.2d at 879.
In this case, the issue is whether th e Consent Decree’s secondary employment provisions satisfy the FLSA’s law enforcement exception. The law enforcement exception allows officers to voluntarily work paid details for separate and inde pendent employers without the officer’s main employer – the law enforcement agency – running the risk that the secondary e mployment counts towards th e calculation of hours for overtime pay purposes. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(1);141 see also 29 C.F.R. § 553.227(d) (providing that law enforcement agencies can “select the officers for special details from a list of those wishing to participate, negotiate their pay, and retain a fee for administrative expenses” as well as require the detail employer to “pay the fee for such services directly to the department”). Unlike inIbarra where the relevant federal agency reversed its position that the agreement was lawful, in this case the United States has steadfastly maintained that the NOPD Consent Decree’s secondary employment provisions squarely fall within the FLSA’s law enforcement exception. In fact, the United States has obtained an opinion letter from the DOL bolstering the United States’ position that the Consent Decree does not violate the FLSA because it satisfies the law enforcement exception.142 Thus, this case is not analogous to Ibarra. Ibarra provides no basis for vacating the NOPD Consent Decree.
141 The United States provided the Court with a letter, dated January 9, 2013, setting forth in greater detail its reasoning why the Consent Decree meets the law enforcement exception. See R. Doc. 184-28.
142 R. Doc. 184-11 (opining that the § 207(p)(1) law enforcement exception “would apply to the particular special details described in the Consent Decree and permit [the NOPD] to exclude its police officers’ hours worked on those special details when calculating the officers’ hours worked for [FLSA purposes].”).
37

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 38 of 48
Furthermore, the City’s assertion that Specht v. City of Sioux Falls , 639 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2011) supports its a rgument that the Consent Decree violates the FLSA is not persuasive. A main employer’s liability for overtime due to the hours an officer spends at his secondary employment depends on whether the main employer merely “facilitates” the officer’s ability to work secondary employment, or whether the mainemployer’s actions go “beyond” what is permittedin the guiding regulation. Specht, 639 F.3d at 822. InSpecht, the City of Sioux Falls (“SiouxFalls” or “the city”) had an agreement with the State of South Dakota whereby Sioux Falls would provide fire fighters at the state’s r equest to fight wildfires. Specht, 639 F.3d at 815. Sioux Falls di d not count any hours the firefighters spent fighting wildfires for the state when calculating overtime because, according to the city, (1) such hours were voluntary special de tails subject to the FLSA’s law enforcement exception set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(1); and (2) the firefighters were state employees at the time they performed their duties on behalf of the state. Specht, 639 F.3d at 815.
Aggrieved firefighters seeking overtime pay sued Sioux Falls, and the district court granted summary judgment in the city’s favor, agreeing that the state details were voluntary and that the firefighters were state employees at the time they were fighting wildfires for the state. Specht, 639 F.3d at 819. T he Eighth Circuit reversed,143 holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the firefighters ac tually were state employees given (1) that the firefighters foug ht the wildfires for the state d uring their regular shifts and not their off-duty hours, (2 ) that the city agreed to pay the firefighters their full salary even if they did not meet the city’s monthly hour quota when working for
143 The Eighth Circuit did not reverse the district court’s determination that firefighters’ work on behalf of the state was in fact voluntary. Specht, 639 F.3d at 821.
38

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 39 of 48
the state, and (3) the language of the agreement between the city and the state.144 Specht, 639 F.3d at 820-22.
The Consent Decree in this case presents no factually analogous issues. All secondary employment must be performed for a third-party employer – i.e., not the City – and must occur during NOPD officers’ off-duty hours. In addition, if the City deems it necessary to enter into any contracts regarding officers’ secondary employment, the City may draft carefully circumscribed agreements that avoid the pitfalls such as those at issue in Specht. Consequently, Specht, like Ibarra, is inapposite and provides no basis for vacating the Consent Decree.
In sum, the City has not demonstrated th at this Court made any “obvious” legal error, within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), when it approved the Consent Decree containing the secondary employment provisions at issue. The United States has never deviated from its position that the Cons ent Decree’s secondary employment provisions satisfy the FLSA’s law enforcement exception setforth in 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(1). Likewise, the City has not provided any caselaw or authority contradicting the DOL’s opinion letter stating that the Consent Decree satisfies the law enforcement exception. Thus, the City has
144 As the Eighth Circuit observed, Throughout the agreement [bet ween the City and the State], the City is referred to as “CONTRACTOR.” A “contractor” is “one who contracts to do work or provide supplies for another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 327 (7th ed. 1999). The Agreement providesthat the State will reimburse the City for “all wage expenses it incu rs,” which includes “all overtime and backfill wages.” The Agreement also explicitly, and tellingly, provides that the State “is not a party t o any uni on contract or oth er employment arrangements between city and its employees” and that the State will reimburse theCity “for all wage expenses it actually incurs as a result of its personnel assisting the Wildland Fire Coordinator including all overtime and backfill wages. . . . Thus, the Agreement specifically acknowledges that the firefighters are, in fact, the employees of the City, not the State. Specht, 639 F.3d at 822 (emphasis in original).
39

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 40 of 48
failed to demonstrate that the Court made an error so plainly obvious in approving the Consent Decree that it should vacate the judgment and thereby disregard the normal process for correcting legal error – i.e., appellatereview. Rule 60(b)(1) does not afford the City relief absent any indication the judgme nt “obviously conflicts with a cle ar statutory mandate” or that the Court made a “judiciaelrror involv[ing] a fundamental misconception of the law.”145 Hill, 827 F.2d at 1043.
IV. Whether th e C ontract is Va lid Under Louisiana Law: Relief Requested Under Rule 60(b)(1)
Fourth, the City argues that, under Louisiana law, the Consent Decree is not a valid contract and should not have been entered by the Cour t. T he City maintains that it withdrew its consent to the agreement and, asa result, there was no meeting of the minds necessary to form an enforceable contract. In addition, according to the City, any consent it did give 146 was vitiated by error because (1) the Consent De cree c ontains terms that violate the FLSA, and (2) despite the City’s good faith attempts to ascertain the NOPD Consent Decree’s costs, the United States wiht held relevant cost information regarding the OPP Consent Decree. The City further maintains that any consent was vitiated by duress due to Perricone’s negative nola.com comments – that is, Perricone poisoned the public’s opinion about the NOPD, thereby forcing the City to agree to the Consent Decree under
145 The Court notes that vacating the Consent Decree because certain portions regarding secondary employment may conflict with the FLSA, rather than reforming the offending language if necessary, is not a proper request for relief at this time. The Consent Decree requires the City to implement the Coordinating Office within 365 days of the January 11, 2013 effective date, not immediately. Any concerns raised can be addressed without vacating the Consent Decree in its entirety. See R. Doc. 159-1 at ¶ 338.
146 The Court observes that the City signed the original proposed Consent Decree on July 24, 2012, filed its joint supplemental motion regarding the revised proposed Consent Decree on September 14, 2012, and continued to press for the Court to approve the Consent Decree until attempting to withdraw from the Consent Decree on January 11, 2013.
40

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 41 of 48
duress. F inally, the City also asserts that any consent was vitiated by fraud because of Perricone’s presence at the negotiating table. In essence, the City a rgues that the Court erred by approving an invalid contract and,because the Consent Decree is now a judgment of the Court, the City is subejct to the Court’s contempt power if it is not in compliance such invalid contract. The City, in effect, is agani asking the Court to vacate the Consent Decree due to legal error within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1).147
The United States responds that federal common law governs contracts, including consent decrees, when the federal government is a party.See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp,. 487 U.S. 500 , 5 04 (1988) (“[O]bligations to and rights of the United States under its contracts are governed exclusively by federal law.”);Smith v. United States, 497 F.2d 500, 507 (5th Cir. 1974); Ctr. for Marine Conservation v. Brown, 905 F. Supp. 383, 385 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (“As a general rule, fed eral la w governs contracts to which the federal government is a party.”) The United States submits that every federal court of appeals that has directly addressed the issue has held that, even prior to a court’s required approval of a settlement agreement, a party may not withdraw from an agreement once that agreement has been reached and submitted for approval.See, e.g., White Farm Equip. Co. v. Kupcho, 792 F.2d 5 26, 530 (5th Cir. 1986) (rejecti ng pre-judgment attempt to withdraw from settlement agreement); In re Syncor ERISA Litig. , 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that, where parties “reached an enforceable settlement agreement subject to court approval,” defendant could not withdraw from agreement even before court approval); Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla,.117 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir1.997) (finding “the district court here was not free to reject the consent decree solely because the City no longer wished to
147 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 20-27 (citing the Louisiana Civil Code and caselaw).
41

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 42 of 48
honor its agreement”);Moore v. Beaufort Cnty., N.C,. 936 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding the defendant county was bound by its settlement agreement and could not withdraw from it even before court approval);Reed By and Through Reed v. United States, 891 F.2d 878, 881 n. 3 (1 1th Cir. 1990) (“On ce an agreement to settle is reached, one party may not unilaterally repudiate it.”). The City, the United States concludes, cannot retreat from its commitments under the Consent Decree simply because it no longer wishes to honor the agreement.
In the alternative, the UnitedStates argues that, even ifLouisiana law applies to the question of whether the City may withdraw from the Consent Decree, the result would be the same. Under Louisiana law, a consent ju dgment becomes binding at the moment of agreement between the parties. See Ritchey v. Azar, 383 So.2d 360, 363 (La. 1980) (“[A] judgment ob tained by consent of the parties gets its binding force and effect from the parties’ consent.”); see also Gulledge v. Gulledge, 738 So.2d 1229, 1230 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999) (“A consent judgment is essentially a bilateral contract which is voluntarily signed by the parties and accepted by the court. It has binding force from the voluntary acquiescence of the parties, not from the court’s adjudication.”).
The Court agrees with the United Statesthat, regardless of whether federal common law or Louisiana applies, the result is the same. The City’s argument that it withdrew its consent after signing the Consent Decree but before the Court gave itsfinal approval to the agreement is unavailing. The Consent Decree became binding on the Parties at the moment of agreement – that is, on July 24, 2012, when the Parties signed and submitted the proposed Consent Decree to the Court, and again on September 14, 2012, when the Parties filed their Errata Sheet and supplemental joint motion to approve the revised proposed
42

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 43 of 48
Consent Decree. The Parties’ written agreement is enforceable and the City is not free to unilaterally withdraw its consent. White Farm Equip. Co., 792 F.2d at 530; Ritchey, 383 So.2d at 363. Furthermore, as the Court has discussed in depth above, the City is unable to demonstrate how Perricone’s involvement, the monetary obligations the City mightnicur in the unrelated OPP litigation, or the NOPD Consent De cree’s secondary employment provisions, have vitiated the Parties’ agreement. Thus, the City has not made a colorable showing that the contract is invalid due to error, duress or fraud. Again, the City has failed to demonstrate that the Court made an error so plainly obvious in approving the Consent Decree that it should vacate the judgment and preclude appellate review.
V. Court’s Procedure in Approving the Consent Decree: Relief Requested Under Rule 60(b)(1)
The City’s final argument assigns fault to the Court’s process i n considering and approving the Consent Decree. The City complains that the Court (1) relaxed the Federal Rules of Evidence at the Fairness Hearing, (2) questioned the Parties about the meaning of certain terms in the Consent Decree and proopsed changes for the Parties’ consideration, and (3) did no t permit the Ci ty to withdraw from the Consent Decree before the Court entered it as a final judgment.148 The United States responds that the Court approved the Consent Decree in a procedurally proper manner. In essence, the City, again, requests the Court to vacate the Consent Decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) due to legal error.
A. The Fairness Hearing The City challenges the manner in whic h the Court conducted the September 21, 2012 Fairness Hearing. On July 24, 2012, the da te the Parties submitted the Consent
148 R. Doc. 175-1 at pp. 27-29.
43

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 44 of 48
Decree to the Court, the Parties strongly urged the Court to approve the agreement immediately. While the Court appreciated the Parties’ request to move quickly, the Court nevertheless observed it had a duty to ensure the Consent Decree was “fair, adequate, and reasonable” before bestowing any approval1.49 See United States v. City of Miam,i664 F.2d 435, 440-41 (5th Ci r. 1981) (A court “must no t merely sign on the line provided by the parties. Even though the decree is predicated on consent of the parties, the judge must not give it perfunctory approval.”). As the public comments the Court has received since this case began have so aptly shown, the citizen s of New Orleans, as well as Chief Serpas and NOPD officers, are greatly concerned with having a constitutional police force that serves and the protects the community. To determine the process by which the Court would evaluate whether the Consent Decree in fact wlli remake the NOPD intoa world class police force for both the public and officers, the Court held status conferences with the Parties in July, August, and September 2012.
As a result of these status conferences,the Court concluded that, although one was not required by law, a fairness hearing, heldin open court and on the record, would greatly increase public confidence in the process and provide the public with an opportunity t o communicate any concerns to the Court and the Parties. At the same time, the Court was mindful of the Parties’ exhortations that reform needed to begin forthwith, and sought to balance the Parties’ desires with those of the public. Recognizing that a “trial court may limit its proceeding to whatever is necessary to aid it in reaching an informed, just and reasoned decision,” Cotton v. Hinton , 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977), the Court concluded that the Fairness Hearing need not adhe re to the strict rules regarding the
149 R. Doc. 7.
44

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 45 of 48
receipt of evidence for a trial.See also UAW v. General Motors Corp,. 235 F.R.D. 383, 387 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (rejecting objections to admission of evidence during fairness hearing that would be inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence because “a fairness hearing is not a trial, but instead has a very singularand narrow purpose – to determine whether the settlement at issue is fair, reasonable, and adequate”). The Court intended the day-long Fairness Hearing to serve as an informati on-gathering session allowing the Court to evaluate the need for the Consent Decree and permitting the public to participate, without the time and expense that a proceeding conducted like a trial on the merits would entail. Indeed, the Parties’ repeated admonitions regarding the City’s tight finances and the need to put the Consent Decree in place as soon as possible spurred the Court to move quickly, while re specting the judicial process, in order to expedite the Consent Decree’s consideration. The Court communicated its plan to relax the Rules of Evidence at the Fairness Hearing to the Parties1.50 The City did not objec1t51 to the Court’s proposed process and fully participated in the Fairness Hearing.
Contrary to the City’s assertions otherwise, the Court was not required to conduct the Fairness Hearing in the nature of a trial on the merits strictly adhering to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Cotton, 559 at 1331;UAW, 235 F.R.D. at 387. The Court is entitled to elicit whatever information is necessary to determine whet her a consent decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Over a period of more than five months prior to approving the agreement, the Court became intimately familiar with the Consent Decree a nd the
150 R. Docs. 5 and 8. 151 The Court recognizes that the City objected to the admission of certain evidence at the Fairness Hearing, see R. Doc. 208 passim, but the City did not object to the Court’s proposed process or the relaxation of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
45

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 46 of 48
deficiencies it is designed to remedy. The evidence the City claims was inadmissable was a small part of the Court’s education about the NOPD’s needed re forms and was not, by itself, d ispositive with respect to the Co urt’s determination that the Consent Decree presented a fair, adequate, and reasonable metohd of reforming the NOPD. Thus, the City’s argument that the manner in which the Court conducted the Fairness Hearing somehow invalidates its approval of the Consent Decree is without merit.
B. The Court’s Questions and Proposed Changes Next, the City complains thatthe Court, via e-mail and atstatus conferences with the Parties, questioned the Parties about the Consent Decree’s terms and the Court proposed changes to the Consent Decree. Again, as set forth above, the Court did not have the institutional knowledge that the Parties gainedduring the DOJ’s investigation of the NOPD and the Parties’ extended negotiation of theConsent Decree’s terms. When presented with the Consent Decree, the Court had to familiarizeitself with the NOPD’sdeficiencies in need of remediation and the processes by which suchremediation would be achieved. Given that the Consent Decree seeks to entirely remake the NOPD, an institutio n that affects every citizen of and visitor to New Orleans, the Court was tasked with approving an agreement of far greater impact than entering a consentjudgment on behalf of private litigants.152 To ensure that the Consent Decree as approved would protect the public interest, the Court had to understand how the Consent Decree would be interpreted and implemented. To that end, and still mindful of cost a nd the Parties’ desire to move as quickly as possible, the Court met informally with counseiln order to query the Parties on the Consent
152 Indeed, the City repeatedly reminded the Court throughout this process that the NOPD Consent Decree “is the most extensive and far reaching [police consent decree] in this nation’s history.” R. Doc. 208 at p. 181.
46

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 47 of 48
Decree’s scope and how its aims would come to fruition. During this time as Court was considering the Consent Decree, members of the public submitted written comments outlining their concerns regarding the agreement’s terms. After exchanges with counsel, the Court was assured that the public’s con cerns would be given due consideration a s policies and procedures were developed and implemented. I n ti me, the Court became confident the agreement was fair, adequate, andreasonable, and served the public interest.
Ultimately, the Court approved153 the Consent Decree submitted via joint motion on July 24, 2012, 154 as later supplemented by the Part ies’ subsequent joint motion on September 14, 2012.155 The Court’s actions were proper, given its duty to confirm that the Consent Decree was fair, adequate, and reasonable prior to approval.
C. The City’s Motion to Withdraw Finally, the City asserts that the Court erroneously refused to permit it to withdraw from the Consent Decree at the January 11, 20 13 status conference. At that time, the executed Consent Decree was a binding contract and the Parties were bound by its terms. See White Farm Equip. Co. , 792 F .2d a t 530; Ritchey, 383 So.2d at 363. The Court provided a procedure for the City to present its arguments in writing to the Court, which the City has now done, and the Court has ca refully considered them. The Court has not deprived the City of any opportunity to be heard and the City’s assertions to the contrary are unavailing. In sum, the City has not identifi ed how the Court made any obvious legal error in
153 R. Docs. 159-1 and 159-2. 154 R. Doc. 2-1. 155 R. Docs. 114-1 and 114-2.
47

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 256 Filed 05/23/13 Page 48 of 48
conducting the Fairness Hearing, conversing with the Parties regarding the Consent Decree’s terms and meaning, o r not allowing the City to unilaterally withdraw from the Consent Decree after it had been signed. Th e Court finds the City has not satisfied its burden pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and the Cityis not entitled to the extraordinary relief of having the Consent Decree vacated.
Conclusion The Court found the Consent Decree to be fair, adequate, and reaso nable, and entered the Consent Decree as a final judgmenton January 11, 2013. Having now reviewed the City’s arguments for vacating the ConsentDecree, the Court finds that the City has not presented any legally cognizable basis for relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise. The Court remains convinced that the Consent Decree is a fair, ade quate, and reasonable solution fo r transforming the NOPD into a world class police force. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, IT IS ORDERED that the City’s motion to vacate is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of May, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
48

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the second motion to stayfiled by the Defendant, the City of New

Orleans (the “City”).1 The City seeks to stay the impl ementation and enforcement of the

Consent Decree this Court entered as a final judgmen2ton January 11, 2013, pending appeal of that judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”).3 For the

following reasons, the City’s second motion to stay is DENIED.

Background

On July 24, 2012, the UnitedStates of America (“United States”) filed its complaint

in this matter against the City after an extensive investigation of the New Orleans Police

Department (“NOPD”),4 pursuant to the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act

(42 U.S.C. § 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §

3789d, the “Safe Streets Act”), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §

2000d to 2000d-7) and itsimplementing regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112) (“Title VI”),

1 R. Doc. 257. 2 R. Docs. 159 and 160. 3 R. Doc. 180. 4 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 14-16.
1

in order to remedy NOPD’s alleged pattern or practice of conduct which subjects individuals to excessive force in violation otfhe Fourth Amendment, unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment , and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI.
Less than one hour after the United Statesfiled its complaint, the United States and the City (together, the “Parties”) filed a JointMotion for Entry of Decree. Attached to such motion was a proposed Consent Decree containing detailed provisions concerning changes in NOPD policies and practices related to (1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagemen;t (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) performance ev aluations and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) the secondary employment system, also known as the pai d d etail system; (13) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and oversight. In addition, the proposed Cons ent Decree also i ncluded detailed provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the oCnsent Decree. The Parties’ motion stated that they sought “to resolve [the] litigation with entry of the attached negotiated Consent Decree” because the document was “int ended to ensure that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in ma anner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”5 After careful deliberation toensure that the proposed Consent Decree was “fair, adequate and reasonable,” th e Court entered it as a final jud gment on January 11, 2013 (“Consent Decree”).6
5 R. Doc. 2 at pp. 1-2. 6 R. Docs. 159 and 160. For a more detailed procedural history of this case, see R. Doc. 256.
2

The City sought to withdraw from the Consent Decree and filed a motion to vacate the Court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (b) of the Fe deral Rules of Civil Procedure January 31, 2013. 7 Pursuant to Rule 62(b), the City a lso filed a motion to stay the implementation and enforcement of the Co nsent Decree while the Court considered the City’s motion to vacate.8 The Court denied the motion to stay, finding that the balance of the equities weighed heavily against granting the City’s motion for a stay because (1 ) the United States and residents of New Orleans would suffer substantial harm if a stay was granted, (2) declining to grant a stay was in tehpublic interest, (3) the City would not suffer irreparable harm if the Court denied the motionto stay, and (4) the Cityfailed to make any argument as to the likelihood of its success on the merits regarding its motion to vacate.9
After giving substantial consideration to the City’s motion to vcate, the Court denied the motion on May 23, 2013, fni ding that the City had not presented any legally cognizable basis for relief pursuant to Rule 60 , or otherwise.10 Thereafter, the City filed the instant motion to stay this case pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1)(A) of the F ederal Rules of Appellate Procedure pending appeal of the Court’s final judgment to the Fifth Circuit.11 This motion to stay is before the Court for decision.
7 R. Doc. 175. 8 R. Doc. 172. 9 R. Doc. 179. 10 R. Doc. 256 at p. 48. 11 R. Doc. 257.
3

Law and Analysis After a federal district court enters a final judgment, Rule 8(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a party to move first in the district court for a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appea.l The Fifth Circuit has set forth four factors a court may consider in determining if it should stay relief pending appeal: “ ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likelyto succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ ”Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 2013 WL 141791, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013) (quotingHilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987));Nat’l Treasury Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 808 F.2d 1057, 1059 (5th Cir. 1987). The City advances two arguments to support its request for the Court to stay this matter pending appeal. First, the City asserts th at it will suffer irrep arable injury if it is required to enter into a professional services agreement (“PSA”) with the Consent Decree Court Monitor (“Monitor”) following the Consent D ecree Court Monitor Selection Committee’s (“Committee”) fifth public meeting,scheduled for May 31, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. noon. The City contends it has extremely limtied funds, and that itsdire financial position could be exacerbated by its obligation withrespect to the Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”).12 Entering into a PSA with the Monitor whenthe OPP price tag is undetermined, according to the City, will prevent the City from being able to “meet all [NOPD and OPP] obligations while ensuring that critical City services continue to be provided to citizens.”13 Second, the
12 For additional information regarding the unrelated OPP litigation, see R. Doc. 256 at pp. 22-29. 13 R. Doc. 257-1 at p. 4.
4

City argues that denying a st ay will pr eclude meaningful appellate review because the selection of the Monitor, either by the Committee or by the Court, is quickly approaching.
With respect to the unrelated OPP litigati on, as this Court previously observed in denying the City’s first motion to stay, “i nadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986);see also Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (rejecting argument that “lack of funds to impelment the trial court’s order” justified failure to remedy ongoing constitutional violations);Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319 (5th Cir. 1972) (“Where state institutions have been operating under unconstitutional conditions and practices, the defense of fund shortage(s) . . . [has] been rejected by the federal courts.”). Likewise, the City’s argument that denying a stay will preclude appellate review is without merit. The Court entered the Consent Decree as a final judgment, which is, in fact, on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In addition to the judgment, the Court entered written reasons regarding why it determined the Consent Decree was “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Consequently, nothing prevents the City from obtaining meaningful appellate review.
Furthermore, the City has failed to makeany showing whatsoever that (1) its appeal to the Fifth Circuit is likelyto succeed on the merits, (2) the United States and residents of New Orleans will not be substantially harmed if the Court grants a stay, or (3) granting a stay is in the public interest. Thus, the City has failed to demonstrate the balance of the equities favors a stay pending appeal. Moore, 2013 WL 141791, at *2.
Accordingly, for the reasons the Court previously assigned14 in denying the City’s first motion to stay and for the reasons set forth above,
14 R. Doc. 179.
5

IT IS ORDERED that the City’s second motion to stay is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of May, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a motion for relief filed by the Police Association of New Orleans

and Michael Glasser in his official capaci ty as President of P ANO (“PANO” or “the

organization”).1 PANO seeks relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Ci vil

Procedure, from this Court’s prior order deny ing PANO leave to in tervene in the above-

captioned matter.2 The United States of America (“United States”) opposes the motion. 3

For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Background4

On July 24, 2012, the UnitedStates of America (“UnitedStates”) filed its complaint

in this matter against the Cityof New Orleans (“City”) after anextensive investigation of the

New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”5) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. § 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of

1 R. Doc. 165. 2 See R. Doc. 102. 3 R. Doc. 174. 4 For a more detailed procedural history of this case, see R. Doc. 256. 5 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 14-16.
1

1968 (“Safe Streets Act” 42 U.S.C. § 3789d), andTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7) and its implementing regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112) (“Title VI”), in order to remedy the NOPD’s alleged pattern or practice of conduct which subjects individuals to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unla wful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI.
Less than one hour after the United Statesfiled its complaint, the United States and the City (together, the “Parties”) filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Decree. Attached to such motion was a proposed Consent Decree containing detailed provisions concerning changes in NOPD policies and practices related to (1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagemen;t (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) perfor mance evaluations and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) th e se condary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and oversight. In additi on, the proposed Cons ent Decree also included detailed provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree. The Partiems’ otion stated that they sought “to resolve [the] li tigation with entry of the attached negotiated Consent Decree” because the document was “int ended to ensure that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in ma anner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”6
To ensure the Court satisfied its duty to determine whether the proposed Consent
6 R. Doc. 2 at pp. 1-2.
2

Decree was in fact “fair, adequate, and reasonable” before approving it, the Court afforded an opportunity for any interested party to move to intervene in the case pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court entered an order on July 31, 2013, instructing any such party to file a motion to intervene no later than August 7, 2012, and any party opposing any such motion(s) to intervene to file an opposition to the motion(s) no later than August 14, 2012.7
Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Orderof Police, Inc., and Walter Powers, Jr. in his official capacity as Acting President oFf OP (“FOP”); Walter Powers, Jr. in his individual capacity (“Powers”); Community United for Change (“CUC”); PANO; Michael Glasser in his individual capacity (“Glasser”); the Office ofthe Independent Police Monitor (“OIPM”) and Susan Hutson in her official capacity as In dependent Police Monitor for the Ci ty of New Orleans (“IPM”); and Susan Hutson in her indivdiual capacity (“Hutson”) (collectively, the “Proposed Intervenors”), filed motions to i ntervene.8 The City and the United States opposed the motions to intervene.9 The Court heard oral argument on all four motions on August 20, 2012.10
Thereafter, the Court denied the Proposed Intervenors’ intervention as of right, and declined to allow them to permissively intervene1.1 Specifically, the Court found that CUC,
7 R. Doc. 7. 8 FOP and Powers filed their motion to intervene on August 6, 2012. See R. Doc. 9. CUC, PANO and Glasser, and OIPM, IPM and Hutson filed their motions to intervene on August 7, 2012. See R. Docs. 11, 13 and 15. 9 R. Docs. 26 and 27. 10 R. Doc. 37. 11 R. Doc. 102.
3

FOP and PANO did not have anylegally protectable interests that would be impaired by the proposed Consent Decree, and thusthat they were not entitled tointervene as of right. The Court, in its discretion, did not allow them to permissively i ntervene because the Court determined that it had otherwise provided ample opportunity for them to assist the Court in its considera tion of the proposed Cons ent Decree without prejudicing the Parties or delaying the pr oceedings. As for Powers and Glasser in their individual capacities, the Court found that they did not demonstrate any legally protectable interest separate from that of FOP and PANO a nd, for the same reasons, they could not intervene as of right or permissively.
With respect to FOP and PANO, organizations seeking to protect and represent the interests of NOPD officers, the Court underscor ed that “as it is currently written, the proposed Consent Decree in no way modifiesthe Civil Service system for NOPD officers.”12 Nevertheless, the Court provided that “[i]f changes are proposed to any NOPD policies that may conflict with the Civil Service rules and procedures, FOP and/or PANO may move to intervene for the limited purpose of asserting their Civil Service property rights.”13
With respect to OIPM, the Court determinedthat the office lacked juridical capacity under Louisiana law and thus was legally incapbale of intervening. Finally, because Hutson failed to provide the Court with any a rgument regarding her individual interest and how any such interest would be impaired as a result of the proposed Consent Decree, the Court determined that she could not intervene as of right or permsisively. Accordingly, the Court
12 R. Doc. 102 at p. 18. 13 See R. Doc. 102 at pp. 21-22.
4

denied the motions to intervene on August 31, 201214. By the same order, the Court further provided that it would allow the Proposed Intervenors to present live testimony and documentary evidence at the Fairness Hearingand would permit the Proposed Intervenors to submit questions for the Cour t to ask the United States and the City. 15 FOP and CUC appealed the Court’s order denying their motions to intervene to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit1.6 PANO filed a timely motion for rleief from the Court’s order pursuant to Rule 60, which is now before the Court for decision.
Law and Analysis PANO seeks relief from the Court’s orde r pursuant to Rule 60 (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(6), arguing that, given the surreptitious online comments of a forme r assistant U.S. Attorney, Salvador Perricone (“Perricone”),17 PANO should be allowed to intervene in this matter. According to PANO, Perricone’s negative comments – which concerned the NOPD, NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas (“Chief Serpas”), the Consent Decree, and the City – are newly discovered ev idence of misconduct attributable to the United States. PANO submits that Perricone’s behavior indicates thatneither the United States nor the City can adequately protect PANO’s interests. Rule 60(b) provides that a court, “[o]n motoi n and just terms,” may “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
14 R. Doc. 102. 15 R. Doc. 102 at p. 25. 16 R. Docs. 118 and 144. 17 For a more detailed overview of Perricone’s online activities, see R. Doc. 256 at pp. 29-34.
5

discovered evidence that , with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 5 9(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misreprese ntation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). The purpose of Rlue 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality of a court order “with the interestof the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.” Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005). Granting relief under Rule 60 is “an ex traordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004);see also Pease v. Pakhoed, 980 F.2d 995, 998(5th Cir. 1993) (“Courts are disinclined to disturb judgments under the aegis of Rule 60(b).”). Consequently, the “scope of relief that may be obtained under Rule 60(b) is strictly limited.” The “deicsion to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b) lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010). I. Rule 60(b)(2) First, PANO argues that Perricone’s comments are newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2). Rule 60(b)(2) permits a Court to grant relief due to “ newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” The new evidence actually must be relevant to the matter the Court is being asked to reconsider. Indeed, the movant must demonstrate he (1) “exercised due diligence in obtaining the information; and (2) that the evidence is material and controlling and clearly would have produced a different result fi present before the original judgment.” Hesling, 396 F.3d at 639 (internal quotation marks and citation
6

omitted). These requirements must be srtictly met for relief to be granted.See Ag Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida, 512 F.2d 141, 143 (5th Cir. 1975), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 425 U.S. 273 (1976).
Perricone’s comments are not a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(2). F irst, Perricone’s vitriol towards the NOPD, Chief Serpas, the Consent Decree, and the City was well known in the Eastern District of Louisian a at the time PANO sought to intervene in August 2012, and thus this evidence is not “newly discovered.”18 Second, PANO has failed to demonstrate that, had PANO focused on Perricone’s comments when it sought leave to intervene, this “clearly would have produced a different result” such that the Court would have allowed PANO to intervene at that time. The Court denied PANO leave to intervene as of right because it found the organization had no legally protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Furthermoret,he Court denied PANO leave to permissively intervene because such intervention would unduly delay the procee dings and provided alternative means for PANO communicate it s concerns regarding the proposed Consent Decree. Perricone’s comments would not in anyway have affected the Court’s analysis and the denial of PANO’s motion for leave to in tervene. Thus, PANO may not avail itself o f relief from the Court’s order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2).
II. Rule 60(b)(3) Second, PANO argues that Perricone’s comments are misconduct within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(3). Pursuant to Rule60(b)(3), a court may relieve a party from an
18 PANO admits that it was aware of Perricone’s comments under the moniker Henry L. Mencken1951 at the time it filed its original motion to intervene in August 2012. See R. Doc. 165-2 at p. 8. See also R. Doc. 256 at pp. 29-34 (discussing when Perricone’s comments became a matter of public knowledge in the Eastern District of Louisiana).
7

order due to fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. A party making a Rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish,by clear and convincing evidence, “(1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or othe r misconduct, and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case.” Hesling, 396 F.3d at 641 (citation omitted). Rule 60(b)(3) is aimed at court decisions “which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually inco rrect. The rule is remedial and should be liberally construed.” Hesling, 396 F.3d at 641 (internal citati ons and quotation marks omitted).
PANO cannot demonstrate that Perricone’s comments prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case at the Augus2t 012 hearing on its motion to intervene1.9 Perricone resigned in March 2012, and was immediatel y removed from the team negotiating the Consent Decree, when his co mments b ecame a matter of public knowledge. Thus, Perricone was no longer involved in Consen t Decree ne gotiations after that time. In addition, as discussed above, the Court d enied PANO l eave to intervene because the organization could not show it had a legally portectable interest in the in the subject matter of the litigation and the Courtprovided the organization with an opportunity to participate in the September 21, 2012 Fairness Hearing. ePrricone’s comments do not somehow imbue the organization a legally protectable interest nor do they render PANO’s participation in the Fairness Hearing ineffective. PANO wasfaforded time, in open court and on the record, to present PANO’s concerns regarding the Consent Decree to the Court. In sum, because
19 As discussed in the order denying the City’s motion to vacate, see R. Doc. 256, because the Court finds PANO has failed to demonstrate how Perricone’s alleged misconduct prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case, there is no need for the Court to determine whether Perricone’s behavior is misconduct imputed to the United States.
8

PANO cannot show the Court’s order denying leave to intervene was unfairly obtained, the relief PANO seeks under Rule 60(b)(3) is not warranted.
III. Rule 60(b)(6) Third, PANO also asserts th at it is enti tled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) because of Perricone’s comments. Rule 60(b)(6), which permits a court to grant such a motion for “any other reason that justifies relief,” is a “catchall” that has been referred to as a court’s “grand reservoir o f equitable power to do justice.” Rocha, 619 F.3d at 400 (quoting Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 311 (5th Cir. 2010)). Nevertheless, a court may invoke Rule 60(b)(6) only for “any other reaosn than those containedin the preceding five enumerated grounds” and only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Rocha, 619 F.3d at 400. PANO argues that neither the United States nor the City can adequately represent PANO’s interests, as the “now notorious mi sconduct of the government [i.e., Perricone], and the plain language bias displayed against the NOPD, its leadership and its members, justifiably lead to an overwhelming view thatthe [Consent Decree] has been ‘poisoned.’ ”20 PANO’s reasoning why it is entitled to relieufnder Rule 60(b)(6) is identical to its reasoning advanced regarding 60(b)(2) and (b)(3). Because PANO fails to identify any independent basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), granting relief under that subsection is inappropriate. See Solis v. Dretk e, 4 36 F . App’x 303, 306 (5th Cir. 2011) (denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because the movant’s claim for reliefwas “based solely upon [movant’s] claims of fraud and misrepresentation under Rule 60(b)(3) and of newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2)”).
20 R. Doc. 165-2 at pp. 9-10.
9

Conclusion Having reviewed PANO’s arguments for r elief from the Court’s prior order due to Perricone’s comments, the Court finds that PANO has not presented any legally cognizable basis for relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise. The Court declines to reconsider its decision todeny PANO’s motion for leave to intervene in this matter. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, IT IS ORDERED that PANO’s motion for relief from the Court’s orde r denying leave to intervene is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of May, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS

After diligent and good faith efforts, the parties, Plaintiff, the United States of

America (“United States”) and Defendant, theCity of New Orleans (the “City”), have been

unable to agree on the selection of the Monitor to oversee implementation of the Consent

Decree in this case. Because there is no doubt that the Monitor is necessary, and because

the court finds it imperative that the Monitorbegin its work without any further delay, the

Court will select the Monitor from the two finalists chosen by the parties.1 The Court has received and reviewed the proposals submitted by the City’s choice, Hillard Heintze,2 and

the choice of the United States, Sheppa rd, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (“Sheppard

Mullin”),3 as well as the parties’ memoranda,4 the public’s letters,5 and the transcripts and

1

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 119 (“If the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or

an alternative selection within the timeframe agreed to by both parties as

of the Effective Date, then the Court shall resolve the disagreement.”); see

id. at p. 118 (providing parties with 90 days from the effective date to

agree).

2

R. Doc. 269.

3

R. Doc. 270.

4

R. Docs. Nos. 276–77.

5

R. Docs. Nos. 224–25, 230–31, 234–37, 240–42, 247–48, 250, 259, 274.

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 7

audio r ecordings of the five public meetings on the topic. 6 The issue is now ripe for decision, and the Court selects Sheppard Mullin as Monitor.
BACKGROUND The Consent Decree provides for a Monitor to oversee the City’s implementation and enforcement efforts.7 The Monitor’s job is to “assess and report whether the requirements of [the Consent Decree] have been implem ented, and whether this implementati on is resulting in the constitutiona l and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” 8 In order to perform its responsibility, the Monitor is required to conduct a number of “reviews, audits, and assessments.” 9 These include compliance reviews to determine whether the City and NOPD have “incorporated [the Consent Decree’s requirements] into policy,” “trained all relevant personnel as nceessary,” and “ensured that the requirement[s] [are] being carried out in actual practice,”10 as well as other assessments to determine the practical effect of the Consent Decree on a number of concrete outcomes.11 In addition to other duties, the Monitor may also make r ecommendations to the parties and provide

6

R. Docs. Nos. 271 (partial transcript of meeting of April 2, 2013), 272

(partial transcript of meeting of April 3, 2013), 273 (partial transcript of

meeting of April 15, 2013). The Court has also reviewed the audio

recordings of the March 7, April 2-3, April 15, and June 13, 2013, meetings.

7

R. Doc. No. 2-1, pp. 108–20. The general background and history of this

case, including the need for the Consent Decree and its procedural history,

may be found in the Court’s prior orders. E.g., R. Docs. Nos. 179 (denying

motion to stay), 256 (denying motion to vacate).

8

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 108.

9

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 109.

10

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 109.

11

R. Doc. No. 2-1, pp. 109–12.

2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 3 of 7
technical assistance “to ensure timely, full, and effective implementation of [the Consent Decree] and its underlying objectives.” 12 These are weighty responsibilities, ones that require a “team . . . of individuals of the highest ethics.”13
In light of the crucial role that the Mo nitor will play in overseeing the Consent Decree, the Court directed the parties to proceed with as public, as open, and as thorough a selection as was reasonable under the circumstances. On September 6, 2013, the Court approved a Request for Proposals to Serve as Consent Decree Court Monitor of the New Orleans Police Department (“RFP”) submitte d by the parties, listing the following as qualifications for submitting a bid: expert ise in law enforcement practices, including training, community policing and pr oblem-oriented policing, and complaint and use of force investigation; expertise in monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including ex perience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders; expertise in evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcomemeasures; institutional transformation and change management; the development of a continuous quality improvement infrastructure; mediation and dispute resolution skills; as well as a variety of technical, communication, and social competencies.14
The parties received twelve responses to the RFP and formed a joint Evaluation Committee (“Committee”), with five members appointed by the City and five by the United

12

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 113.

13

R. Doc. No. 2-1, p. 119.

14

R. Doc. No. 110-1, p. 8.

3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 4 of 7

States, to review the candidates.15 The Committee held five public meetings with the first

on March 7, 2013, and the last on June 13, 20 13. The public was also invited to provide

comments in writing to the City, which were filed into the record.16

The Committee winnowed the twelve candidates to five, and after interviewing the

five candidates, to two finalists.17 The City recommended a team from Hillard Heintze, a

strategic security services and investigativeservices firm. The United States recommended

a team from the law firm Sheppard Mullin. Btoh candidates made presentations during the

public meetings, Hillard Heintzeat the April 2, 2013, meeting,and Sheppard Mullin, at the

April 3, 2013, meeting.18 Two members of the Committee from the City and two from the

United States have conducted over ten a dditional interviews with these finalists. 19 Both

parties made efforts to construct a consensusteam of professionals from the two proposed

teams, but they were unable to accomplish this result for a number of reasons.

The Hillard Heintze team is led by former Chicago Police Depa

rtment

Superintendent Terry Hillard as Monitor andformer Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen

O’Toole and former San Jose Chief of Po lice Rober t D avis as Deputy Monitors,

supplemented by approximately eighteen other professionals and several consulting

15

R. Doc. No. 162.

16 R. Docs. Nos. 207, 224–25, 230–31, 234–37, 240–42, 247–48, 250, 259, 274.

17

R. Doc. No. 273, p. 2.

18

R. Docs. Nos. 271–72.

19

R. Doc. No. 277, p. 5.

4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 5 of 7

groups.20 The Sheppard Mullin team is led by the firm’s partner Jonathan Aronie as Monitor and another partner David Douglassand former Charlotte-Mecklenburg Chief of Police Dennis Nowicki as Deputy Monitors, supplemented by approximately eight other professionals and at least one consulting group.21
ANALYSIS The proposals of both teams satisfy therequirements of theConsent Decree and the RFP. Both teams are composed of competentprofessionals who the Court believes would be able to discharge the duty of Monitor with itnegrity. This is hardly surprising, given that these two finalists rose to the top of an init ial pool of twelve candidates from across the country. After its review and consideration,the Court finds Sheppard Mullin is the better choice for several reasons. First, the duties of the Monitor closely trakc the kinds of activities that are the bread and butter of legal practice. T he Mo nitor is not primarily responsible for formulating policies—that task falls to the City and the Nwe Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) in the first instance. The Monitor is instead primarily responsible forreviewing the policies that the City and NOPD draw up to ensure that they comport with the requirements of the Consent Decree and constitutional policing—precisely the kindof advisory role that lawyers are accustome d to playing. Similarly, th e Monitor is not primarily responsible for implementing policies. The Monitor instead has the obligation of assessing compliance with the policies. That kind of institutional investigation and assessment, which involves the collection, review, and synthesis of large amounts of i nformation, is also a task that

20 R. Doc. No. 270, pp. 4, 9–11.

21

R. Doc. No. 277, pp. 7–8.

5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 6 of 7
lawyers, particularly lawyers at firms like Sheppard Mullin, routinely preform. The Monitor also has the responsibility to report to both the Court and the public in clear and concise terms. It goes without saying that lawyers are trained to communicate with and report to courts, and the Sheppard Mullin team makes a st rong case for its competence in communicating with the public as well.
Second, the head of the Sheppard Mullin team has experience with performing this kind of task, having served as Deputy Monitor of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) in Washington, D.C., under a memorandum agreement with the United States2.2 Although the Hillard Heintze team includesmembers who have had experience working in a monitoring capacity, the Court considers th e prior monitoring experience of the team leader to be entitled to comparatively more weight, and Chief Hillard, the head of the Hillard Heintze team, has not served as a monitor. Third, the Hillard Heintze team includes a large number of highly qualifie d professionals, but the Court believes the streamlined nature of the Sheppard Mullin team will help ensure that each team member is intimately familiar with the Consent D ecree. Finally, the public’s comments, taken as whole, favor Sheppard Mullin.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,IT IS ORDEREDthat Sheppard Mullin is selected as the Monitor required by the Consent Decree. IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the City negotiate ingood faith the details of the professional services agreement with Sheppard Mullin, including a discussion of cost and
22 R. Doc. No. 270, p. 10. 6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 283 Filed 07/05/13 Page 7 of 7 a cap on costs.23 The United States is to be kept advised of the progress and substance of the negotiations and may have a representati ve present during in-person meetings and conference calls between the City and Sheppard Mullin.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat a status conference is set forJuly 19, 2013, at 12:30 p.m., for the parties to report to the Court on the status of negotiations, which the Court expects will be concluded by that time.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of July, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23 R. Doc. No. 122, exhs. A & B. 7

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 6

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

T

STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I LED

EAS,eVi'ls=o~NA

September 27, 2013

Fe ~R THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Lyle W. Cayce

fIlE[ NOV 202013 ~

Clerk

\NIl L16M W. BLEVINS
CLERK

No. 12-30972

D.C. Docket No. 2:12-CV-1924 ~r?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant - Appellee v.

CRESCENT CITY LODGE NO.2, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, INCORPORATED; WALTER POWERS, JR.; COMMUNITY UNITED FOR CHANGE,

Movants - Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause was considered on the record on appeal and was argued by counsel.

It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

'--, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellants pay to..ap}i''ldifiQIi tb,Q costs

o'n appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.

2.. ~.M_.

_ ClP.fllOep_ __

_ Doc.No_ __

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 6

--- - - -

1 9 NOV 2013
ISSUED AS MANDATE:

A True Copy 1 9 NOV 2013-
Attest

New Orleans, Louisiana

•

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Un;ledState.CourtofAppeals Fifth Circuit

F I LED

September 27,2013

No. 12-30972

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Defendant-Appellee
v.
CRESCENT CITY LODGE NO.2, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, INCORPORATED; WALTER POWERS, JR.; COMMUNITY UNITED FOR CHANGE,
Movants-Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:'

• Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 4 of 6
No. 12-30972 Movants Crescent City Lodge No.2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated (FOP); Walter Powers, Jr.;l and Community United for Change (CUC) appeal the denial of their motions to intervene as of right and permissively in the consent decree dispute between the United States and the City of New Orleans related to the operation of the New Orleans Police Deparment (NOPD). We affirm. This court reviews de novo the district court's decision granting or denying a motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996)(en bane). An applicant is entitled to intervene in litigation ifthe four requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) are met: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that the disposition ofthe action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest is inadequately represented by the parties to the suit. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984)(en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1019 (1984). All four requirements must be met to qualify for intervention as of right. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994). Requirement (1), the timeliness of the motion, is not at issue in this case. Rather, this case rests on the district court's conclusion that none ofthe movants had a sufficient interest in the litigation under requirement (2). Under that requirement, the movant must have a "direct, substantial [andllegally protectable interest" in the subject matter ofthe proceedings. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 732 F.2d at 463. This means something more than an
1 FOP and its president, Walter Powers, Jr., are treated collectively because their interests are identical.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 5 of 6
No. 12-30972 economic interest. It means an interest "which the substantive law recognizes as belonging to or being owned by the applicant." Id. at 464. The district court correctly ruled that CUC's motion failed because it lacked a "legally protectable interest" in the subject matter of this litigation that the substantive law recognizes. The district court also correctly ruled that FOP's motion failed because, while the NOPD officers who are members of FOP are civil servants who have a property interest in their jobs, they have no legally protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation because the consent decree does not modify the civil service system for NOPD officers.
The district court also did not err in denying the movants' request for permissive intervention. Permissive intervention is left to the discretion ofthe district court, and is appropriate when the intervention request is timely, the intervenor's "claim or defense and the main action have a question oflaw or fact in common," and granting intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the original parties in the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2); Edwards, 78 F.3d at 999; Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 1987). A district court may deny permissive intervention even when the requirements of Rule 24(b) are met. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 732 F.2d at 471. This court will not reverse absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id.
This is a tough standard to meet and cannot be met on the facts of this case. The district court explained its denial on the basis that allowing the movants to intervene would unduly delay the proceedings and was not necessary because the court provided FOP ample opportunity to assist the court in its consideration of the consent decree and that intervention by CUC would not significantly assist the court. Movants also make no persuasive argument that their interests are not adequately represented by the parties to the suit.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's denial of the movants' motions to intervene is affirmed.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 321 Filed 11/20/13 Page 6 of 6

AFFIRMED

No. ·12-30972

4

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 16

United States Court of Appeals

:It

Fifth Circuit

-:..,..-___....u:~~D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I LED

September 27,2013

NOV 202013

OR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

WIlLIAM W. BLEVINS CLERK

No. 13-30161

D.C. Docket No. 2:12-CV-1924 JJ,-.::-:.:.-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause was considered on the record on appeal and was argued by counsel.

It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant-appellant pay to plaintiffappellee the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.

ISSUED AS MANDATE: 1 9 NOV 2013

A True Copy 1 9 NOV 2013
Attest

-_-;rF- fflt'roo;e::'~~--
-1l.. O/i)j
- C!P.mD~ep---
- - - - Doc. No.

New Orleans, Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 2 of 16

,

,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

UniledStatesCouriofAppeals Fifth Circuit

F I LED

September 27,2013

No. 13-30161

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
The City of New Orleans (City) appeals from the district court's orders entering judgment on a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) related to past practices of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) and denying the City's motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We agree with the district court that the record reveals no change in circumstances after the City proposed the consent decree that justifies the City's attempt to vacate it. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in either order, we affirm.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 3 of 16

,

No. 13-30161

I.

A.

In May 2010, at the invitation of New Orleans Mayor Mitchell Landrieu,

the DOJ began an investigation of alleged constitutional violations by the

NOPD. The investigation revealed longstanding patterns of unconstitutional

conduct and bad practices and policies within the department. In July 2012, the

DOJ filed the complaint in this case against the City under the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141; the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789; and Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7, and its implementing

regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 42.101-12. The purpose ofthe suit was to remedy the

patterns or practices identified in the investigation ofconduct by the NOPD that

subjected individuals to excessive force in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment,

unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and

discriminatory policing practices in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment and

the statutes listed previously.

On the same day the complaint was filed, the City and the DOJ agreed to

a proposed consent decree (the NOPD Consent Decree), outlining reform

measures for the NOPD. The City and the DOJ sought approval of the decree

from the district court. The district court held a Fairness Hearing on September

21, 2012, to determine whether the NOPD Consent Decree was fair, adequate,

and reasonable. Prior to the hearing, the DOJ and the City filed a joint

supplemental motion, again asking the district court to enter the amended

consent decree. The amended decree reflected edits made to correct

typographical errors, to add clarity, to reflect changes requested by the district

court, and to incorporate suggestions made by third parties in comments to the

court.

2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 4 of 16
No. 13-30161
The district court did not immediately enter the NOPD Consent Decree. After the September Fairness Hearing, the district court submitted 129 questions to the parties raising concerns about the consent decree. Several status conferences were held and numerous revised drafts ofthe consent decree were circulated reflecting the parties' ongoing negotiations.
At a status conference on January 11, 2013, the City informed the court that it wished orally to move to withdraw its consent to the joint motion and withdraw from the NOPD Consent Decree. The same day the district court approved the amended NOPD Consent Decree and made the following findings:
Having considered the proposed Consent Decree, the comments received from the public and the Proposed Intervenors, the testimony and evidence presented at the September 21, 2012 Fairness Hearing, the Parties' representations, and the fact that the City has committed to adequate funding to implement the proposed Consent Decree, the Court finds that the proposed Consent Decree, as amended, is fair, adequate and reasonable, and is not the product of fraud, collusion or the like. The court noted the City's change of position and stated that it would consider a motion seeking relief from the judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 31,2013, the City moved to vacate the consent decree under Rule 60(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied the motion to vacate on May 23, 2013. In its motion to vacate, the City raised several issues related to events that occurred at various phases of this case, discussed below.
B.
1) The Orleans Parish Prison Consent Decree (OPP Consent Decree) At the same time the DOJ was working with the City on the NOPD Consent Decree, it was also working with the Orleans Parish Sheriff on a consent decree aimed at correcting alleged unconstitutional conditions at the
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 5 of 16
No. 13-30161
.orleans Parish Prison (OPP). The City provides the majority ofthe funding for the OPP. The DOJ sent its findings to the Mayor and the City Attorney in 2009. In October 2011, the DOJ sent the City a draft of the OPP Consent Decree, which required the City to provide adequate funding to achieve constitutional conditions of confinement at the jail. In April 2012, private plaintiffs who were prisoners and former prisoners sued the Sheriff and other OPP officials in a case captioned Jones v. Gusman, Nos. 12-859, 12-138 (E.D. La.), which is being heard by a different district judge in New Orleans. In July 2012, before the City consented to the NOPD Consent Decree, the Sheriff sent the City a $45 million cost estimate for fiscal year 2012 to comply with the OPP Consent Decree. That estimate, if implemented, would have doubled the Sheriffs existing budget for the jail. In August 2012, the DOJ emailed counsel for the Sheriff and the City presenting $34.5 million as a reasonable compromise budget from which to start negotiations. A month later, in September 2012, the City joined with the DOJ in presenting the Joint Supplemental Motion for Entry of Decree in this case. The OPP Consent Decree was entered in June 2013.
The City argues that the DOJ obtained its acquiescence to the NOPD Consent Decree through ambush and without informing it ofthe potential costs of the OPP Consent Decree. The City further states that it cannot afford both.
2) Perricone's Involvement Sal Perricone, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was involved in the negotiations of the NOPD Consent Decree. In March 2012 (before the NOPD Consent Decree was presented to the district court), it came to light that, using an alias, Perricone had posted remarks about the NOPD and the consent decree in the public comments section ofthe Times Picayune newspaper website. Perricone admitted to the postings and resigned that month. Perricone had previously applied to be the Superintendent of the NOPD. The City argues that the DOJ failed to disclose the full extent of
4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 6 of 16
No. 13-30161 Perricone's online activities, which involved several aliases, and that others within the DOJ committed similar abuses. The City argues that the actions of Perricone and others qualify as "misconduct" that should provide relieffrom the judgment under Rule 60(b)(3). The City also alleges that Perricone was responsible for including secondary employment (known locally as paid-detail) reforms in the NOPD Consent Decree. The City argues that those reforms add to its costs under the NOPD Consent Decree and raise potential legal problems because of alleged conflicts with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law.
3) Potential Liability under the FLSA and Louisiana Law One of the reforms initiated by the NOPD Consent Decree involves oversight of NOPD officers' secondary employment. According to the government, the DOJ investigation identified several problems with the NOPD's unregulated system of secondary employment, which allows officers to work details for third parties to earn a second source of income. The DOJ found that officers would check in with the NOPD for a shift and then leave for a secondary detail. Officers negotiated their employment directly with employers leading to conflicts of interest, corruption, and even extortion. At a minimum, the secondary employment system resulted in the potential for divided loyalties on the part of the officers between the City and their secondary employers. The NOPD Consent Decree creates rules and oversight for secondary employment. The City argues that no constitutional violation was associated with prior practices by the City, that Perricone pushed to have this provision inserted in the NOPD Consent Decree, and that its provisions open the City to liability for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. After the district court entered judgment on the NOPD Consent Decree and denied the City's Rule 60(b) motion, the Louisiana legislature enacted Section 33:2339 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, which restricts
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 7 of 16
No. 13-30161
communications between the committee overseeing the secondary employment reforms and the NOPD.
4) Procedures at the Fairness Hearing The City complains that at the September 21,2012 Fairness Hearing, the district court suspended the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure, refused to permit cross-examination of witnesses, and accepted voluminous hearsay evidence under relaxed procedures that applied to both parties. The City appeals the district court's entry of judgment approving the NOPD Consent Decree and its denial of the City's Rule 60(b) motion to vacate that judgment.
II. A. A consent decree is like a settlement agreement, contractual in nature. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992). "[I]t is an agreement the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees." Id. A settlement agreement, once entered into, cannot be repudiated by either party and will be summarily enforced. White Farm Equip. Co. v. Kupcho, 792 F.2d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 1986). "[F]or purposes of determining whether the [party] entered into an enforceable settlement agreement, it is irrelevant that they attempted to revoke their consent prior to entry ofjudgment." Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256,268 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Stovall v. City of Cocoa, 117 F.3d 1238, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court was not free to reject the consent decree solely because the City of Cocoa no longer wished to honor its agreement). Consent decrees cannot be approved without due consideration by the district court and, once approved, have the force of a legal judgment. Id. (vacating district court order because it did not evaluate whether the challenged
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 8 of 16
No. 13-30161
consent decree was fair, reasonable and lawful). "Even if all ofthe litigants were in accord, it does not follow that the federal court must do their bidding.... The entry of a consent decree is more than a matter of agreement among litigants. It is a judicial act." League of United Latin Amer. Citizens Council No. 4434 u. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 845 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (citations omitted). As stated above, the district court held a Fairness Hearing and made appropriate findings that the Consent Decree was fair, adequate, and reasonable.
B. Consent decrees are subject to modification by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rufo, 502 U.S. at 378. Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; [or]
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court held in Rufo that the party seeking modification of a
consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. The change in circumstances may occur when "changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous." 502 U.S. at 383-84. However, modification should not be granted when a party bases its request on events that were anticipated when it entered into the decree. ld. at 385.
A change in circumstances may also be recognized when a legal change occurs such that "one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 9 of 16
No. 13-30161 become impermissible under federal law." Id. at 388. For example, in Ibarra v. Texas Employment Commission, 823 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1987), this court reversed the order of the district court approving a consent decree because the Commission entered into the consent decree on the basis of a mistake of law as to the United States Department of Labor's position on an issue relevant to the agreement.
This court reviews the entry of a consent decree for abuse of discretion. Ibarra, 823 F.2d at 879. It also reviews decisions on a motion under Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Lowry Dev. v. Groves & Assocs. Ins., 690 F.3d 382, 285 (5th Cir. 2012).
In its Rule 60(b) motion and in this appeal, the City seeks to revoke the decree and raises the following bases for revocation: 1. The City did not consent to both the OPP Consent Decree and the NOPD
Consent Decree; 2. The City cannot afford both the OPP Consent Decree and the NOPD
Consent Decree; 3. The secondary employment provisions of the NOPD Consent Decree
potentially violate the FLSA and the newly enacted La. Rev. Stat. § 33:2339; 4. The investigation and negotiations with the DOJ were tainted by the actions of DOJ employees; and 5. Procedural deficiencies tainted the district court's approval process and further eroded the City's consent.
1. The City did not consent to both the OPP Consent Decree and the NOPD Consent Decree.
The City argues that consent was lacking for the NOPD Consent Decree because its agreement was based on a misunderstanding insofar as it did not
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 10 of 16
No. 13-30161 know the ultimate cost of the opp Consent Decree when it signed the NOPD Consent Decree. The City alleges that the NOPD Consent Decree on its own will stretch the City's budget and that the DOJ waited until the City signed the NOPD Consent Decree before saddling the City with the costs of the OPP Consent Decree.
The district court found that the City's claim that "it had no knowledge of the potential cost ramifications" of the OPP lawsuit was "patently false." Specifically, the City has funded the jail for decades, and it was involved in the litigation involving jail conditions. Drafts of the OPP Consent Decree dated October 2011 required the City to allocate funds sufficient to maintain constitutional standards. On July 19, 2012, five days before this lawsuit was commenced and the NOPD Consent Decree signed, the Sherifftold the City that he would need a budget of $45 million to bring the jail up to the standards required in the proposed OPP Consent Decree. This budget represented a 100% increase over the prior year's funding. Further discussions about the budget took place in August 2012, in which a $34.5 million compromise budget figure was suggested. An attorney for the City participated in the negotiations of the OPP Consent Decree. The following month, the City again urged the district court in this case to approve the amended NOPD Consent Decree. Based on our review ofthe record, the district court correctly rejected the City's claim oflack of knowledge of the potential cost of the OPP Consent Decree. To the contrary, the record clearly demonstrates that the City was fully informed of the likely cost of complying with the OPP Consent Decree well before it signed the NOPD Consent Decree and urged the district court to approve it.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 11 of 16
No. 13-30161
.2. The City cannot afford both the OPP Consent Decree and the
NOPD Consent Decree.
In a related argument, the City claims that it is unable to fund both the NOPD Consent Decree and the OPP Consent Decree. In Rufo, the Supreme Court recognized that "[mlodification of a consent decree may be warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous." 502 U.S. at 384. However, the Court also ruled that modification should not be granted when "a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree." Id. at 385. The City's argument rests on the assumption that there was a change in the City's knowledge about the cost of the OPP Consent Decree between the time the City agreed to the NOPD Consent Decree and the date on which it sought to withdraw its consent. As outlined above, the record belies this argument.
3. The secondary employment prOVlSIOns of the NOPD Consent Decree potentially violate the FLSA and the newly enacted La. Rev. Stat. § 33:2339.
One issue covered by the NOPD Consent Decree is the issue of secondary employment by NOPD officers. Several provisions ofthe NOPD Consent Decree direct the newly created Office of Police Secondary Employment to become more directly involved in managing secondary employment by NOPD officers. For example, that Office must fill all new secondary employment opportunities according to stated criteria, supervisors must conduct in-person inspections of job sites, and the NOPD and the coordinating office must establish a standard registration form for officers wishing to be assigned to secondary employment and procedures to determine whether an officer qualifies for such employment. The City's concern is that more rigorous oversight of secondary employment will obligate it to include the hours worked on secondary details when determining
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 12 of 16
No. 13-30161
whether overtime wages are due. In the past, the City treated secondary
employment as falling within a statutory law-enforcement safe harbor of the
FLSA for calculating overtime hours.!
The DOJ obtained an opinion letter from the United States Department
of Labor confirming that, under the system established in the NOPD Consent
Decree, officers' secondary employment would continue to fall under the law
1 The safe harbor appears at 29 U.s.C. § 207(p)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 553.227(d): (p) Special detail work for fire protection and law enforcement employees; occasional or sporadic employment; substitution.
(1) If an individual who is employed by a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency in fire protection or law enforcement activities (including activities of security personnel in correctional institutions) and who, solely at such individual's option, agrees to be employed on a special detail by a separate or independent employer in fire protection, law enforcement, or related activities, the hours such individual was employed by such separate and independent employer shall be excluded by the public agency employing such individual in the calculation of the hours for which the employee is entitled to overtime compensation under this section if the public agency--
(A) requires that its employees engaged in fire protection, law enforcement, or security activities be hired by a separate and independent employer to perform the special detail, (B) facilitates the employment of such employees by a separate and independent employer, or (C) otherwise affects the condition of employment of such employees by a separate and independent employer.
29 U.S.C. § 207.
(d) The primary employer may facilitate the employment or affect the conditions of employment of such employees. For example, a police department may maintain a roster of officers who wish to perform such work. The department may also select the officers for special details from a list of those wishing to participate, negotiate their pay, and retain a fee for administrative expenses. The department may require that the separate and independent employer pay the fee for such services directly to the department, and establish procedures for the officers to receive their pay for the special details through the agency's payroll system. Finally, the department may require that the officers observe their normal standards of conduct during such details and take disciplinary action against those who fail to do so.
29 C.F.R. § 553.227.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 13 of 16
No. 13-30161
enforcement exception of the FLSA. The City has presented no contrary legal opinion and we see no reason the exception should not apply.
This situation is not comparable to that in Ibarra, on which the City relies. Ibarra v. Texas Employment Comm'n, 823 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1987). In Ibarra, this court reversed the order of the district court approving a consent decree because the Commission entered into the consent decree on the basis of a mistake of law as to the Department of Labor's position on an issue relevant to the agreement. Id. at 879-880. In that case the Department of Labor reversed its position that the agreement was lawful. Id. at 875. The same has not occurred in this case. Even the City's brief appears to recognize that no harm has occurred. It states, with emphasis supplied: "In light of the significant penalties imposed by the FLSA, this case should be remanded to grant the City's motion to modify the NOPD Consent Decree if DOL alters its position or should the City's secondary-employment provisions come under legal challenge." The FLSA provides no basis for relief from the NOPD Consent Decree at this time.
The City also relies on the recent enactment by the Louisiana Legislature of Section 33:2339 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Subsection A(l) states in relevant part as follows:
The managing director and employees of the Office of Police and Secondary Employment (OPSE), or its successor, may only communicate with the New Orleans Police Department, its staff, officers, or superintendent regarding matters concerning paid detail or secondary employment assignments. All other matters shall be communicated in writing, in a standardized format available for public review. The City argues that this statute seriously curtails its ability to comply with certain provisions ofthe NOPD Consent Decree, an argument the DOJ asserts is without merit. However, Section 33:2339 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes was not brought to the district court's attention because it was not enacted until
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 14 of 16
No. 13-30161
June 4, 2013, after its ruling on the 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we decline to address this issue.
4. The investigation and negotiations with the DOJ were tainted by the actions of DOJ employees.
The City argues that the NOPD Consent Decree should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(3) because the actions of Assistant U.S. Attorney Perricone and others constitute fraud, misrepresentations or misconduct by an opposing party.
A party making a Rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish (1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case. Gov't Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P'ship v. Peyton Place, 62 F.3d 767, 772 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotations and citations omitted). The moving party has the burden ofproving the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1339 (5th Cir. 1978). Unlike Rule 60(b)(2), 60(b)(3) does not require that the information withheld be such that it can alter the outcome ofthe case. Id. Rule 60(b)(3) "is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect." Id. Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 641 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The district court noted that the City learned of at least one of Perricone's aliases and online postings several months before the NOPD Consent Decree was signed. After this information was revealed, the City continued negotiations on the Consent Decree. More aliases and postings were revealed after the NOPD Consent Decree was signed. Even now, however, the City does not identify any way that it was prevented from "fully and fairly presenting its case." Although the City links Perricone to the inclusion of secondaryemployment provisions in the NOPD Consent Decree, substantial independent evidence of problems related to the paid detail system was brought to the investigators by the public, NOPD officers, local judges, and federal law
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 15 of 16
No. 13-30161 ~nforcement officials during the investigation ofthe NOPD. The City does not allege that Perricone's misconduct caused the City to make a mistaken assessment of the need for reforms in the NOPD's method of dealing with paid details. It only alleges that the reforms are not linked to constitutional violations and add to the cost of the NOPD Consent Decree.
The online postings by Perricone and others present no basis to vacate the consent decree.
5. Procedural deficiencies tainted the district court's approval process and further eroded the City's consent.
Finally, the City alleges that the district court erred by suspending the Federal Rules of Evidence and of Civil Procedure at the Fairness Hearing. The district court prohibited cross-examination of witnesses and entered into evidence nearly every document offered by the DOJ even though most constituted unauthenticated hearsay. The same relaxed rules were applied to both the DOJ and the City. A party must make a timely objection to a ruling admitting evidence and a party cannot challenge an evidentiary ruling unless it affects a substantial right. Fed. R. Evid. 103; Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 756 (2000). The City did not object to the district court's decision not to employ the rules of evidence at the hearing. This argument is therefore forfeited. Moreover, the City does not point to any evidence the district court admitted that prejudiced the City or eroded its consent to the decree, particularly since the Fairness Hearing occurred after the City had agreed to the NOPD Consent Decree, and the City urged the court to enter the decree throughout the hearing.
The City also argues that the district court has continued to modify the NOPD Consent Decree following entry of judgment. The record reflects that, although the district court has held conferences to discuss proposed edits, no
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 323 Filed 11/20/13 Page 16 of 16
No. 13·30161 edits have actually been made. The City's complaints on this point do not support their attempt to vacate the NOPD Consent Decree.
III. For the foregoing reasons, the judgments ofthe district court entering the NOPD Consent Decree and denying the City's Motion under Rule 60(b) are AFFIRMED.
15

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 326 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 2

"~'..T. mUR.i·"D,lmDl'"~df.=U::r:f':l:l'S··l1,:.,1.· THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

V ~E[ NOV 25 2013

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM W. BLEVINS CLERK

No. 13-30786

~I/ 1,;L·ICf.;]lf- ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 25,2013
Lyle w. Cayce
Clerk

v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
CLERK'S OFFICE:
Under 5TH CIR. R. 42.3, the appeal is dismissed as of November 25,2013, for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely file the appellant's brief and record excerpts.
LYLE W. CAYCE Clerk ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
~(j,d1JlI.f.9J.fv,'~1I L
By: __________________ Dantrell L. Johnson, Deputy Clerk
ENTERED AT THE DIRECTION O_ El..'TIRr~ ilSC!, O_ TT_ RT_
:..L 0 0 j 1 - - - -
_C/,ft~_~
_ Doc. No._ _~

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 326 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 2

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court ofAppeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE NEW ORLEANS. LA 70130

November 25, 2013

Mr. William W. Blevins U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana 500 Poydras Street Room C-151 New Orleans, LA 70130
No. l3-30786 USA v. City of New Orleans USDC No. 2:12-CV-1924
Enclosed is a copy of the judgment issued as the mandate. The electronic copy of the record has been recycled.

Sincerely,
LYLE W_ CAYCE, Clerk
~a,iN.iJ. 9J-fv,~/I L-
By:
Dan~t-r-e-I~I~L~.-'J~o~h-n-s-o-n--,~D~e-p-u-t'y~Clerk
504-310-7689
cc w/enel: Mr. Brian Joseph Capitelli Mr. Ralph Allen Capitelli Ms. Emily Anna Gunston Mr. Stephen C. Parker Ms. Sharonda R. Williams

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 339 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER Considering the Consent Motion to Amend the Consent Decree

1 to address

prepayment for secondary employment, and considering the unani mous input of the

parties,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and paragraph 350 of the

Consent Decree entered by this Court on January 11, 20132 shall be amended as follows

(amendment in bold print):

350. (a)

The Coordinating Office shall ensure that all potential employers are notified of their responsibilities, including: (1) Agreeing that individuals or entities seeking to
employ off-duty NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office; (2) Making all payments in advance and acknowledgment that advanced payments may be subject to forfeiture or penalty assessment associated with late cancellations; (3) Agreeing to have secondary employees sign in and sign out every work day; and (4) Acknowledging that they are prohibited from providing any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, beyond nominal

1R. Doc. No. 335. 2R. Doc. No. 159-1.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 339 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 2
compensation in the form of food or beverages, to an NOPD employee or the friend or relative of an NOPD employee in exchange for any secondary employment services offered. (b) An employer may be exempt from the advance payment requirement of section (a)(2) of this paragraph if: (1) the employer is a state or governmental agency; or (2) the employer satisfies the specific criteria which have been delineated by the Director of the Coordinating Office, and approved by the Monitor and the DOJ, to determine financial stability. (c) Any further modifications or revisions to the criteria delineated by the Director pursuant to section (b)(2) of this paragraph are subject to an approval process similar to the one contained in consent decree paragraphs 21 and 22.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of February, 2014.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 402 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

SECTION: “E” (2)

ORDER CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING Co nsent Motion to Amend Paragraph

376 of the Consent Decree (Doc. 389) filed by the City of New Orleans and the United

States;

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. The Motion is granted insofar as th e Court will amend Paragraph 376 of the

Consent Decree but denied in that the Court has made additional changes—with input of

the parties—to the proposed amendment. Paragraph 376 of the Consent Decree shall b e

replaced with the language that follows:

B. Non-Investigative Responses to Allegations of Misconduct

Notwithstanding the requirement that all allegations of misconduct be fully and fairly investigated, NOPD through PIB may elect to address certain allegations of misconduct through one of the following alternative mechanisms as set forth herein:

1)

Non-Disciplinary Counseling

In certain limited circumstances, a supervisor may elect to address a minor violation/infraction through non-disciplinary counseling or remedial training. A minor violation/infraction that is eligible for non-disciplinary counseling is a first violation of a Department rule, policy, procedure, regulation, or instruction that a supervisor believes requires minimal intervention through retraining and counseling (e.g., tardiness, uniform requirement, cleanliness of vehicle). The behavior must not be the subject of a civilian complaint and must be considered so minor that it is correctable by simple counseling and minimal intervention, with the goal of non-repetitive behavior. The supervisor must have first-hand knowledge of the employee’s behavior that constituted the violation/infraction for it to be eligible for non-disciplinary counseling. A second or subsequent violation/infraction in a twelve month period is ineligible for resolution through non-disciplinary counseling.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 402 Filed 09/11/14 Page 2 of 3

If a supervisor elects to address a minor violation/infraction through non-disciplinary counseling, the supervisor shall document the minor violation/infraction, as well as the specific counseling imposed, and transmit that documentation to PIB within five days of the supervisor becoming aware of the minor violation/infraction. PIB shall review the documentation and shall have authority to require a full investigation into the alleged minor violation/infraction.

NOPD agrees to develop and incorporate into policy specific protocols for employing non-disciplinary counseling in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the Decree.

2)

Negotiated Settlement

In certain limited circumstances, NOPD through PIB may elect to address and resolve a rank-initiated violation (i.e., an allegation of misconduct reported by an NOPD supervisor) through a negotiated settlement agreement between the department and the officer. To be eligible for negotiated settlement, a rank-initiated violation must be an infraction or set of infractions that is (1) subject to discipline ranging from reprimand to a maximum of ten days suspension; and (2) listed in the penalty schedule set out in the effective and DOJ- and Monitor- approved NOPD Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Complaint Resolution Procedure (Procedure 1023). Complaints initiated by citizens shall not be eligible for negotiated settlement. PIB shall have sole authority to determine whether a rank-initiated violation is eligible for negotiated settlement. Negotiated Settlement Agreements are not a “right” or “entitlement” even if a rankinitiated violation is eligible. At any point prior to the final approval by the Superintendent, the matter may be handled through the formal investigation process.

NOPD agrees to develop and incorporate into policy specific protocols for employing negotiated settlement agreements in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree.

3) Mediation

In certain limited circumstances, NOPD through PIB may elect to address and resolve an allegation of misconduct brought by a civilian through an OIPM-led mediation program. The goal of the mediation process is to increase the level of trust between NOPD and the community.

PIB shall have sole authority to determine eligibility for mediation. Only certain civilian complaints shall be eligible for mediation, for example: professionalism, discourtesy, and neglect of duty. NOPD shall develop and incorporate into policy specific guidelines for determining eligibility for mediation. Further, a complaint will be ineligible for mediation if the NOPD employee against whom the complaint is made has already had two complaints mediated within the previous twelve months. Once PIB deems a complaint eligible for mediation, OIPM shall have sole authority to determine if resolution of the complaint through the mediation process would be appropriate.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 402 Filed 09/11/14 Page 3 of 3
Complaints that are either ineligible, inappropriate, or otherwise not selected for mediation will be returned to PIB for formal disciplinary investigation. NOPD agrees to develop and incorporate into policy specific protocols for employing mediation in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of September, 2014.
________________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 261 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 2

MINUTE ENTRY MORGAN, J. May 30, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

On May 29, 2013, the City of New Or leans (“City”) petitioned1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) for an emergency stay of the above-captioned matter pending the Ci ty’s appeal of the Co urt’s January 11, 2013 order approving the Consent Decree. The United States of America opposes the City’s petition.
The Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed all proceedings in this ma tter until further notice.2 Accordin gly, t he C onsent Decr ee C ourt M onitor S election C ommittee’s (“Committee”) May 31, 2013 meeting isCANCELED and the attendant briefing schedule regarding the Monitor is VACATED. The Court will issue a separate notice to the public that the Committee meeting has been canceled.3
The Parties shall post a copy of (1) thisminute entry (without attachments) and (2) the Court’s notice on the doors o f the B ienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez-Benz
1 See Exhibit A, attached hereto. 2 See Exhibit B, attached hereto. 3 See Exhibit C, attached hereto.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 261 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 2 Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, no later than Friday, May 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
In addition, the P arties shall publish a copy of (1) this minute entry (without attachments) and (2) the Court’s notice ontheir respective websites no later thanFriday, May 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
The Court will issue further orders, as approrpiate, upon receipt of the Fifth Circuit’s forthcoming ruling on the City’s petition for an emergency stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of May, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 New Orleans Consent Decree Monitor Third Quarterly Report August 31, 2014
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Page 2 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

WHAT 'S I N T HI S RE PORT?

Office of t he Consent Decree
M o n it o r

WHAT WE DID THIS QI:ARTER
Reo-~"ed md millyud NOPDUse of FOfcedia .>\nillyzed in-ar cmll!l";r functioulity
.4.nillyzed Field Inteniev-' Card (FIC) proc:ess Re\~'ed policies, obs~yed training, :wd atte'llded disciplmry he2fings
Obset\"ed police officers through ride.illonp, unannounced obSet\":dions , md reo--1ev..' of \-1deo foo~e
Re\~"ed KOPD record k~g pr:actices regarding Cw todi:w Intenog:dions, Photogriiphic lin~s, Use of FOfce in\"estigirions, :wd SupervIsor respon.!ibilities

Third Quarterly Report
August 2014
Cove ring Ap ril 1, 2014 Ju ne30,2014

" l i"n WE rOL~"'D

g

q

Decree Implemenwion Unit was an extremely positive dl!'\"e1opment

The Office of PoIke Secondary Emplo}ment continues to m.1ke signifICant progress toWard rlil!'\ing its goills

The implemenwion ofbodywom cameras appears to be~ing ;r m.:ueri.ill plsM"e impact on offICe! use of force

NOPD hiled to notice and'Of remedy a high peranage of non· functioning in-ar cameras

NO PD continues to stru!..e:le with a lack ofcon.!istent recordk~g

NOPD field supet\isors hiled to submit adequ.:a!e documentltion of use
of fOfce reo-l ev-'s to pm

The FIC proc:ess is in need of significant improvement

• NOPD progress in developing compliant policies continues to be slow,
but we are encouraged by the competence :wd urgency exhibited by the nl!\\' Consent Decree lmplementltion T~

S. .
conse nl deaee monita"com forfull repon
Sheppitr d Mullin Richt er & Hitmpton U P

~LTI QI:ARTER' S ACTI\TIlES
Continue to reo-iew, assess, and suggest reo-isIons to NOPD policies
Continue to monitor and l!'\"iIluate NOPD' s training
Initi.:ue the fint collection and llD.1!ysis ofannu.:al "outcome measuremenU "
Work with the IPM to assess whether racial profiling complaints are being properly C2ptU1ed and investig.:ued by NOPD
RI!'\~' and llD.1!yze body v.om camera fooage to asSes l the accuracy of NOPD FICs, arrest reporu , and'or :activity logs, as well as the quality of polke/citize!l interaction.!
Continue to monitor closely NOPD 's ongomgpr:actices in a number of Consent Decree areas , including disciplinary he2fings, bias free policing, Use of Force eo-"ents. misconduct in\"estigatious, secondary emplo}ment, and more

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 3 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. Consent Decree Authority “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 4 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

II. Notes

“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Easter District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”

-Consent

Decree Paragraph 455

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 5 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. Table of Contents
I. Consent Decree Authority....................................................................................................3 II. Notes ....................................................................................................................................4 III. Table of Contents.................................................................................................................5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms .......................................................................................................10 V. Introduction to Third Quarterly Report..............................................................................12 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities ....................................................................................13 VII. Policies Generally ..............................................................................................................16 VIII. Use of Force Reports .........................................................................................................17
A. Introduction............................................................................................................17 B. Data ........................................................................................................................18 C. Findings..................................................................................................................22
1. Use of Force Reporting..............................................................................22 2. Video Recording Of Use Of Force Incidents.............................................23 3. Supervisors Review Of Available Evidence..............................................25 4. The Number Of Officers At The Scene Of A Use Of Force .....................25 D. Supervisor Interviews of Subjects of Uses of Force ..............................................26 1. Supervisors At The Scene..........................................................................26 2. Supervisors Reviewing Use of Force Reports ...........................................27 3. Photographs of the Subject ........................................................................29 E. Relationship Between Use of Force and Use of Force Statements........................31
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 6 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
F. Force Factor Analysis ............................................................................................33 IX. Stops, Searches & Arrests (CD 122-162) ..........................................................................35
A. Background ............................................................................................................35 B. Methodology ..........................................................................................................36 C. Findings..................................................................................................................37
1. Field Interview Cards Are Not Being Completed Consistently.................37 2. Information on Field Interview Cards........................................................38 3. NOPD’s Policy Regarding FIC Completion is Not Clear .........................38 4. NOPD’s Policy Regarding Arrest Reports Makes a Full Field
Interview Card Review Difficult ...............................................................39 D. Recommendations..................................................................................................41 X. Custodial Interrogations (CD 163-170) .............................................................................42 A. Structure, Location, and Recording (CD 163-165)................................................42 B. Interview Notes in Case Files (CD 166) ................................................................43 C. Physical Location of Interrogations (CD 167).......................................................43 D. Interpreters (CD 168).............................................................................................44 E. Detective Training (CD 169-170)..........................................................................44 XI. Photographic Line-Ups (CD 171-176)...............................................................................45 XII. Academy and In-Service Training (CD 245-288) .............................................................46 A. New Sergeant Training ..........................................................................................47
1. Lesson Plans...............................................................................................48 2. Handouts and other visuals ........................................................................48 3. Hands-On Activities...................................................................................48 4. Reference to the Availability of Health Professionals ...............................49
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 7 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
5. Policemen vs. Police Officers ....................................................................49 6. The Facility ................................................................................................49 7. The Students...............................................................................................49 8. The Instructors ...........................................................................................50 9. The Instruction ...........................................................................................50 B. Observations on Racial Profiling Training ............................................................54 XIII. Supervision (CD 306-331).................................................................................................55 A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306).............................................................................55 B. Single Supervisor (CD 307)...................................................................................57 C. Supervisor Hours (CD 308) ...................................................................................58 D. Platoon Supervisor Assignments (CD 309) ...........................................................58 E. Supervisor Ratios (CD 310)...................................................................................58 F. Fill-In Supervisors (CD 311) .................................................................................59 G. Close and Effective Supervision (CD 312)............................................................59 H. Supervisor Accountability (CD 313) .....................................................................60 I. Early Warning Systems (CD 316-326) ..................................................................61 J. In-Car Cameras (CD 327-331)...............................................................................62 1. Background ................................................................................................62 2. Methodology ..............................................................................................63 3. Findings......................................................................................................63 4. Supervisor Use of Recording Devises .......................................................64 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................65 XIV. Secondary Employment System (CD 332-374).................................................................66
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 8 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication (CD 375-426)................66 XVI. Community Engagement – Police Officer Survey (CD 223-233) .....................................67
A. Perception of Bias Within the NOPD ....................................................................68 B. Officer/Citizen Trust/Mistrust ...............................................................................69 C. Conclusion .............................................................................................................70 XVII. Transparency and Oversight (CD 427-443).......................................................................70 XVIII. Agreement Implementation and Enforcement (CD 444-492) ...........................................72 A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459) ..........................................................................72 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)........................................72 C. City’s Semi-Annual Report (CD 469) ...................................................................73 D. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476) .......................................................73 XIX. What Are We Doing Next Quarter?...................................................................................74 XX. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................75 Appendix 1 Degree of Subject Resistance and Officer Force on the Force Factor ......................78 Appendix 2 Descriptive Statistics for Use of Force Information..................................................79 Appendix 3 Descriptive Statistics for Officer-Based Information................................................80 Appendix 4 Descriptive Statistics for Subject- Based Information. .............................................81 Appendix 5 Descriptive Statistics for Conclusion of the Force Incident......................................82 Appendix 6 Descriptive Statistics for “Other” Information..........................................................83 Appendix 7 Cross Tabulation of Force Factor Degree and the Presence of a Supervisor at the Scene ............................................................................................................................84 Appendix 8 Cross Tabulation of the Force Factor Degree and the Interview of a Primary Subject................................................................................................................................85 Appendix 9 Cross Tabulation of the Force Factor Degree and whether or not the Primary Subject was Photographed at the Scene.............................................................................86
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 9 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 10 Cross Tabulation of the NOPD Force Level and the Presence of a Supervisor at the Scene......................................................................................................87
Appendix 11 Cross Tabulation of the Consent Decree Force Level and the Interview of a Primary Subject..................................................................................................................88
Appendix 12 Cross Tabulation of Consent Decree Force Level and whether or not the Primary Subject was Photographed at the Scene. ..............................................................89
Appendix 13 Additional Statistical Information Regarding The “Force Factor” .........................90 Appendix 14 Consent Decree Use of Force Levels ......................................................................93 Appendix 15 Police FIC Survey Responses .................................................................................94 Appendix 16 FIC Survey Data......................................................................................................95 Appendix 17 Police Survey Responses.........................................................................................99 Appendix 18 Summary of Consent Decree Elements.................................................................113
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 10 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. Glossary of Acronyms

“ASU” Adm

inistrative Services Unit

“AUSA” Assistant United States Attorney

“AVL” Auto

matic Vehicle Locator

“BWC”

Body Worn Cameras

“CCMS” Criminal Case Management System

“CD” Consent

Decree

“CIT” Crisis

Intervention Team

“CODIS” Combined DNA Index System

“ComStat” Com puter Statistics

“CPI”

California Psychological Inventory

“CSC”

Civil Service Commission

“CUC”

Citizens United for Change

“DA” District

Attorney

“DI-1”

Disciplinary Investigation Form

“DOJ”

Department of Justice

“DVU”

Domestic Violence Unit

“ECW”

Electronic Control Weapon

“EWS”

Early Warning System

“FBI”

Federal Bureau of Investigation

“FIT”

Force Investigation Team

“FOB”

Field Operations Bureau

“FTO”

Field Training Officer

“IACP”

International Association of Chiefs of Police

“ICO”

Integrity Control Officers

“IPM”

Independent Police Monitor

“KSA”

Knowledge, Skill and Ability

“LEP”

Limited English Proficiency

“LGBT”

Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender

“MMPT” Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

“MOU” Mem

orandum of Understanding

“NNDDA” National Narcotics Detection Dog Association

“NOFJC” New Orleans Family Justice Center

“NOPD” New Orleans Police Department

“NPCA” National Police Canine Association

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 11 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVU” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Unit University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 12 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

V. Introduction to Third Quarterly Report
This quarterly report covers New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) and City activity from April 2014 through June 2014. This quarter was a busy one for the Monitoring Team. In addition to our ongoing assessments of NOPD compliance with the various paragraphs of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team spent significant time drilling down into several discrete areas to undertake a quantitative and qualitative assessment of NOPD’s compliance with certain key obligations. These areas included Use of Force Reports, Disciplinary Hearings, In-Car Cameras, and Field Interview Cards. Additionally, this quarter the Monitoring Team analyzed the results of the Biennial Police Officer Survey conducted last quarter.
In addition to these quantitative and quantitative assessments, the Monitoring Team continued to spend significant time reviewing and commenting on NOPD policies, procedures, and directives (for ease of reference, we will refer to all three as “policies”). The absence of approved policies continues to be a primary concern of the Monitoring Team – and, admittedly, of the parties as well. While NOPD’s recent hiring of a five-person Consent Decree Implementation Unit has given us more optimism than we have had in the past in this area, the lack of policies continues to delay other important monitoring activities.
We also spent time this quarter observing NOPD training. Obviously, the Monitoring Team cannot conduct a comprehensive review of NOPD’s training program in the absence of approved policies. However, we can observe the training that is being conducted in the meantime and report on the substance, quality, and effectiveness of that training.
With respect to our recurring monitoring activities, the Monitoring Team continues to review NOPD record keeping, custodial interrogation recordings, photographic lineup practices, FIT investigations, and numerous other Consent Decree requirements on a monthly basis. We also still regularly ride-along with officers and supervisors to assess their actions in the field. This quarter, we began supplementing our evaluations with reviews of body-worn camera, Taser camera, and in-car camera footage, as well as activity reports, to give us a broader picture of whether NOPD’s policies are being implemented in practice.1
Overall, we continue to believe NOPD is making progress toward meeting its obligations under the Consent Decree. This progress notwithstanding, as we noted in our prior report, NOPD still has a long way to go before achieving full and sustained compliance with its Consent Decree obligations. Several of this quarter’s findings provide telling insight into the challenges the Department continues to face. For example:

1

Video footage now routinely will be reviewed in conjunction with the Monitoring Team’s review of use of

force investigations and PIB investigations into allegations of police misconduct.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 13 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 The Department continues to lag in the development of effective, compliant policies.
 NOPD’s record keeping practices, including those relating to its Use of Force investigation files, continue to show significant deficiencies.
 Some supervisors are not performing and/or tracking the full range of their supervisory responsibilities.
 NOPD’s Field Interview Card process is confusing, inconsistently applied, and difficult for NOPD (and the Monitoring Team) to monitor.
 A large number of NOPD’s in-car cameras are non-functional – a particularly troubling finding in light of the critical role cameras play in providing transparency into a police department’s activities.2
As described later in this report, the recent hiring of five qualified “compliance managers” to staff the Department’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit no doubt will help to expedite NOPD’s progress in each of these areas. Indeed, we already are seeing a new sense of comprehension and urgency from NOPD that we felt was lacking prior to the engagement of the Implementation Unit. The Monitoring Team is hopeful this comprehension and urgency will translate into greater success in meeting the Consent Decree’s requirements.
VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities
This quarter involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessments. While we spent significant time reviewing policies and other internal documents, attending training, and observing disciplinary hearings, we also gathered, coded, and reviewed extensive data. The resulting quantitative assessments provide greater insight into a number of critical issues, including the completeness of NOPD supervisors’ documentation of investigations into uses of force by police officers, the fairness of misconduct investigations, the effectiveness of management oversight, and the usefulness of NOPD’s Field Interview Cards. We were able further to supplement our findings in these areas through the overlay of a broad survey of NOPD police officers, the results of which have been incorporated into this quarterly report.
As in each prior quarter, the Monitoring Team also spent time this quarter meeting with citizens, working with the IPM, riding along with police officers, and meeting with supervisors throughout the NOPD. These meetings continue to provide us with an invaluable perspective into a number of important Consent Decree areas. It also provides us with a good sense of the ongoing areas of concern among NOPD officers and community members.

2

The NOPD has made significant progress is addressing this problem since the close of this reporting

quarter.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 14 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

While the Consent Decree does not permit the Monitoring Team to receive or investigate particular citizen complaints, the Team does solicit citizen and officer comments and does incorporate those comments into its monitoring activities. Such comments have been received during our quarterly public meetings, through regular communications with the IPM, the OIG, and the NOPD PIB, through regular contact with citizen groups, and through affirmative outreach efforts by citizen groups to the Monitoring Team. An illustrative (but by no means exhaustive) list of the feedback we received this past quarter and how we incorporated the matters into our monitoring work follows:



A community member brought to our attention the story of a New Orleans

resident who was murdered in her home by a co-workers ex-boyfriend. While the

suspect was arrested for the murder, significant questions arose regarding the

NOPD’s response to the earlier reports of violence. While the Courts are dealing

with the legal actions arising from the incident, the Monitoring Team has looked

closely at the police actions and has used the lessons learned therefrom to inform

our analysis of the City’s general response to domestic violence situations and its

investigation of alleged police misconduct, areas covered by Consent Decree

paragraphs 212, 222, and 382, among others.



One citizen group brought to our attention allegations that NOPD was

inappropriately involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their

unrelated law-enforcement practices. Similarly, this group identified what they

believed to be significant shortcomings and flaws in NOPD’s current

immigration-related policies. The Monitoring Team met with leaders and

members of the affected organization and used the information received to inform

our review of NOPD’s immigration practices and its written policy. These are

matters that fall squarely within Consent Decree paragraph 183.



During our many ride-alongs this quarter, many officers complained about the

quality of their equipment. These complaints were consistent with the findings of

the Police Officer survey the Monitoring Team conducted this quarter. As a result

of these comments, the Monitoring Team will be working with the NOPD

Consent Decree Implementation Unit to ensure officers have the equipment they

need to keep them safe and get their jobs done.



A group of college students with whom we met previously reported being treated

with disrespect by police officers. While we encouraged the students to bring

such complaints to the attention of the PIB and/or the IPM, we also used the

information to guide not only our observation of officers, but also the

development of a ride-along evaluation form. We also plan to use the information

we learned from the student meetings to inform our ongoing review of PIB and

IPM complaint data. (CD XVII)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 15 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Multiple officers complained over the course of this quarter about changes to NOPD’s Secondary Employment rules. While many of the complaints were misplaced and likely based upon misinformation regarding the recent changes, others were quite well-thought-out and expressed a genuine concern about the changes. As a result of multiple discussions with officers, citizens, and the NOPD Office of Police Secondary Employment, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the parties to the Consent Decree to craft reasonable modifications to the Consent Decree to address the concerns raised. (CD 332-374)



A New Orleans civil rights attorney brought to the Monitoring Team’s attention

an incident involving the victim of an alleged aggravated battery and the NOPD’s

response thereto. In cooperation with the United States Attorney’s Office, the

Monitoring Team met with the victim to hear first-hand about the incident. While

the PIB currently is investigating the matter and the IPM is monitoring that

investigation, the Monitoring Team obtained the entire case file, including

communication tapes, as part of its own ongoing monitoring of NOPD supervisor

responsibilities (CD XV), and PIB investigations (CD XVII).

The Monitoring Team continues to welcome comments from the public.

Finally, as we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team has spent time meeting with and listening to the parties to the Consent Decree. The Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 16 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VII. Policies Generally
The Second Quarterly Report detailed numerous deficiencies that impeded the NOPD’s efforts to develop policies that met the Consent Decree’s requirements. The Report described two distinct types of obstacles: (1) drafting deficiencies that provided inadequate explanation and guidance concerning the NOPD’s underlying policies and (2) flaws in the underlying policies themselves, which drafting cannot cure. The Report also cited the NOPD’s failure to implement a clear, organized drafting process, assign personnel with policy drafting experience, and provide accountable leadership. The Report expressed optimism, however, that once the NOPD fully staffed its Consent Decree Implementation Unit the process would improve and expedite.
As observed in this Report, the Consent Decree Implementation Unit is now fully staffed. More important, the Monitoring Team has been impressed with the credentials and dedication of the Unit’s personnel. The Unit has centralized and streamlined the policy revision process. The Unit has focused its policy revision efforts on revising those policies the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to make a priority: (1) Use, Reporting and Review of Force; (2) Crisis Intervention Team; (3) Stop, Searches and Arrests; (4) Custodial Interrogations; (5) Biased Policing; (6) Community Engagement; (7) Academy and In-Service Training; (8) Supervision; and (9) Misconduct Investigations. The Unit presented to the DOJ, the Monitor, and the Court a plan and timetable for submitting revised policies, to which it largely has adhered, submitting some policies ahead of the forecast date.
The Unit has revised and resubmitted policies, which the DOJ and Monitoring Team previously had reviewed and returned to NOPD because they failed to meet the standards for effective policing. Upon reviewing the resubmitted policies, the Monitoring Team observed substantial improvement in the Use of Force Policy and the Misconduct Policy. To its credit, the Implementation Unit has not limited its efforts to addressing the DOJ’s and Monitoring Team’s previous comments, but has taken a fresh look at the policies, reorganizing and revising them to improve structure and clarity. The Unit also has broadened the source material it considers. Although these policies still evidenced drafting and substantive deficiencies, they were significantly improved. Other policies the Implementation Unit submitted, however, had been neither meaningfully revised nor improved.3
It should be noted here that it is not only the DOJ and the Monitoring Team that find NOPD’s current policies confusing. During the new sergeants training we attended this quarter, several sergeants approached us to complain about how confusing NOPD’s policies and procedures were. The Monitoring Team has heard similar complaints from rank and file officers as well. While not a statistically valid sampling of the NOPD population, such unsolicited

3

Some observations of the Monitoring Team were not shared with the Implementation Unit during this

reporting quarter. The Implementation Unit’s response to those observations will be reported in the next

quarterly report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 17 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

officer feedback further confirms the Monitoring Team’s oft-stated views the NOPD’s policies are in serious need of improvement. Much of the confusion stems from the separation of the policy from the procedures. There also is a lack of direction for first responders and the lack of delineation of duties with respect to follow-up responsibilities.
The Parties and the Monitoring Team continue to coordinate to improve and expedite the policy revision process. The process continues to present a substantial challenge. The drafting and review process is time-consuming and must be performed meticulously in order to ensure that the resulting policies are clear, consistent and effective at communicating the policies, procedures, and practices officers must understand and follow to perform constitutional policing. The Monitoring Team will continue to assess whether the NOPD is devoting the resources necessary to accomplish this critical task as expeditiously as possible.

VIII. Use of Force Reports

A. Introduction
The issue of appropriate use of force lies at the very heart of constitutional policing. The issue was a critical focus of the DOJ investigation, and has been a critical focus of the NOPD for some time as well. The DOJ Report noted the “NOPD had begun to make significant and overdue changes to its force policies, regarding how officers will be trained to use force, and how force will be reported, investigated and reviewed.” The Report also emphasized the need for further “comprehensive changes to policy and practice to end the pattern of unconstitutional use of force by NOPD.”4 The Report, the Consent Decree, and the Monitoring Team recognize the changes required are long-term solutions. Thus, while the following findings concerning NOPD’s Use of Force Reports5 provide a valuable and informative snapshot of the current status of NOPD’s use of force reporting, the broader purpose is to set a baseline against which further improvements in polices, practices, and outcomes can be measured.
Informed by the DOJ Findings Report, the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to
develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately. (CD III)

In determining whether the NOPD’s use of force policies and practices are reasonable, the Monitoring Team applies the legal test for the constitutionally reasonable use of force as set forth

4

See DOJ Findings Report at vii.

5

A Use of Force Report documents a supervisor’s investigation of Levels 2 and 3 uses of force. Field

supervisors review Level 1 uses of force and investigate Levels 2 and 3 uses of force. The NOPD Public

Integrity Bureau Force Investigation Team investigates higher levels of force.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 18 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

by the United States Supreme Court. The use of force must be “objectively reasonable” when considered in the “totality of the circumstances” in which the force was used. This assessment requires careful attention to the circumstances of each particular case, including (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether he or she is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.6
The Supreme Courts’ definition of constitutionally reasonable force highlights not only the standard by which the Monitoring Team evaluates the NOPD’s use of force, but also one of the challenges in making that evaluation; namely the difficulty of accessing the totality of circumstances after the fact. Judging the totality of circumstances usually requires access to a broad range of information, including eyewitness accounts, evidence, and expert analysis. Further complicating this assessment with respect to specific uses of force by NOPD officers, however, is NOPD’s deficient recordkeeping practices, as reported below. The growing availability of Body Worn Camera, Taser, and in-car camera video footage, however, gives the Monitoring Team more tools than previously available. The Monitoring Team is using those tools to facilitate its monitoring efforts in the area of uses of force.
B. Data
To promote effective reporting, the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to “develop and implement a uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting Policy, using a uniform supervisor Use of Force Report, which will include individual officer Force Statements.” (CD 76)
The Monitoring Team reviewed reports of 145 use of force events this quarter. These 145 events comprise all Use of Force Reports logged by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) during the period January through May 2014. Our review, at this time, was limited to the documents found in the files maintained by PIB/FIT. We reviewed the investigating supervisor’s Use of Force Report, all officer Force Statements in the file, and the Department’s response to the use of force. We carefully considered whether the Use of Force Report was completed properly, whether the supervisor reported that he or she responded to the scene of the incident, whether the incident was recorded (e.g., by an in-car or body worn camera), and more. We also considered the demographic information contained in the Use of Force Reports, including gender and race.

6

“Objectively reasonable” is a legal term and is judged not from the perspective of the officer who used the

force, i.e., subjectively reasonable, but an unbiased assessment based on factual evidence. The Supreme

Court described the “objectively reasonable” standard this way: “As in other Fourth Amendment

contexts, . . . the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is

whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting

them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. . . . An officer’s evil intentions will not make

a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good

intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. . . .” See Graham v. Connor, 490

U.S. 386 (1989).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 19 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

For purposes of this quarter’s analysis, we did not go beyond the materials accompanying the Use of Force Report contained in the PIB/FIT files. The existence of evidence such as video recordings or hospital treatment records was often indicated in the Use of Force Report but not included in the file for our review. Where the reports indicate additional evidence, such as Taser video, Body Worn Camera, and in-car camera recordings, may be available, but was not in the file, our subsequent review will locate and review that evidence. The Monitoring Team will follow-up on every Use of Force Report about which our initial review raised questions and/or concerns.
Overall, one of our key findings is that the files we reviewed are incomplete and, thus, do not facilitate adequate oversight by the Force Investigation Team of the Public Integrity Bureau, or by the Monitoring Team.7 Minimally, in addition to the supervisor’s Use of Force Report documenting his or her investigation, the file must contain Force Statements from all officers using force and from all officers witnessing the event. Additionally, a complete Use of Force Report should include a copy of the offense report, copies of all associated video recordings or pointers to where those files can be located, and a statement of justification for the use of force as determined by the supervisor – all evidence required to be collected and maintained by the Consent Decree. It also should contain copies of hospital treatment records and photos of injuries to subjects. In our review we found few files complete. In fact, only one file included a video recording, even though forty-seven of the investigative reports indicated a recording was available. And none of the files we reviewed included photos of the subjects of the use of force. As discussed below, it is a requirement of the Decree (CD 86d) (and a common police practice) that photos be taken of all subjects who claim injury, and even of subjects not injured to preserve evidence that they were not injured. In short, NOPD has a ways to go to render its Use of Force Reports useable for the critical intended purposes – and into compliance with the Consent Decree.
Fundamentally, any use of force analysis is only as good as the available data. Due to the general lack of documentation found in the files, we did not undertake to make an independent determination of whether the use of force was reasonable considering the totality of circumstances at this time. Going forward, however, as we now have more ready access to more complete information including TASER, Body Worn Camera, and In-Car Camera video footage, we are able to (and will) assess the reasonableness of specific use of force events in accordance with the constitutional standard.
Included in the 145 use of force events we reviewed this quarter are 18 Level 4 force events, defined by the Consent Decree as a serious use of force. The Consent Decree defines a serious use of force as: (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD

7

In addition to being incomplete, the Reports were not always well written. It is worth noting here that

NOPD seems to recognize this shortcoming and is working to remedy it. An instructor in the new

sergeant’s training informed his class that report writing is one of NOPD’s “biggest problems.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 20 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (6) all canine bites; (7) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject. Level 4 use of force events are subjected to a more thorough and in-depth review by the NOPD8 – and by the Monitoring Team.
The 145 Use of Force Reports reviewed by the Monitoring Team this quarter broke down as follows among the NOPD’s various Districts:

Use of Force Reports By District

24% 23%

7% 8%

6% 8% 8%
11% 5%

1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D Other

Figure 1
As reflected in Figure 1, the 145 Use of Force reports we reviewed were distributed among the various police districts fairly evenly, with one exception. The average number of reports for a District (including specialty units) was 13.5 per District, with the 8th District being the outlier with 34 Use of Force Reports. See Appendix 2.

8

The Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) is a unit of the Public Integrity Bureau with primary responsibility

for conducting investigations of all critical firearms discharges and serious use of force events by members

of the New Orleans Police Department. FIT is commanded by a Lieutenant who reports directly to the

Deputy Chief of PIB. FIT investigative personnel have been selected by the PIB Deputy Chief in

consultation with the FIT Lieutenant for their investigative competency and integrity. All members of FIT

receive specialized training on conducting use of force investigations, including annual training in legal

aspects of internal investigations, and both criminal and administrative force investigation from recognized

experts in the field.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 21 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

While the “Other” category in Figure 1 comprises 24% of the Use of Force Reports reviewed by the Monitoring Team, it is important to point out that category includes a number of different NOPD units, including task force officers, narcotics units, investigative units, Special Operations Division officers, and gang unit officers. While future Quarterly Reports will allocate those Use of Force Reports to the Districts to which the involved officer(s) is assigned, due to inherent limitation in the initial data capture process, this Quarterly Report groups them collectively into the “Other Category.” Future Quarterly Reports also will attempt to add uniform as a variable for analytical purposes. This will allow the Monitoring Team to identify differences in uses of force by uniformed platoon officers, those specialists who wear tactical duty uniforms,9 and plain clothes personnel.
The uses of force also broke down fairly evenly over the course of the period of review, with most months having approximately the same number of reports.

Use of Force Reports By Month

3%

21%

18%

Jan

Feb 19%
Mar

22%

Apr

17%

May

June

Figure 2
The month with the highest number of reported uses of force was April 2014, with 31 reports. The lowest was June 2014, with 6 reports.10 See Appendix 2.
In 114 of the 145 Use of Force reports reviewed (78.6%), the subject of the force was identified a non-white. In 116 of the 145 Reports, the subject was identified as male. We were

9

Tactical duty uniforms also are commonly known as “BDUs.”

10

While the chart suggests June was an anomalously low month, subsequent to our review, PIB/FIT

identified an additional 31 June cases that were not available at the time of our review. The Monitoring

Team is reviewing those cases now.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 22 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
unable to determine the race or gender of the subject in 5 of the 145 Reports, which reveals a failing on the part of those particular report writers.
Most uses of force did not involve injury to the officer. In fact, in 118 of the 145 cases, the reporting officer reported receiving no injury from the use of force. The Use of Force Reports did not consistently reflect the extent of injury to the subject of the force, although the Monitoring Team has requested additional information regarding subject injury for certain reports. Additionally, in future quarters, the Monitoring Team will focus on subject injury through means beyond the Use of Force Reports, for example, through a review of hospital records, prison records, IPM complaints, and/or PIB complaints. The NOPD should require investigating supervisors to capture such information in future Use of Force reports.
C. Findings
A summary of our findings follows:
1. Use of Force Reporting
Due to the recordkeeping deficiencies identified above, we have refrained from undertaking a determination of the reasonableness of the force used in the 145 records we reviewed at this time, although we will make individualized assessments in future quarters. Such assessments will be facilitated once NOPD is operating under approved policies and procedures, and once NOPD requires its supervisors and investigators to prepare more comprehensive investigations files. Our monitoring, however, has not waited for such improvements. The Consent Decree identifies specific practices that promote constitutional use of force, and those practices must be applied now. Accordingly, we analyzed the NOPD’s compliance with those elements of the Consent Decree, as well as other measures that also can indicate or promote the reasonable use of force. In addition to providing a snapshot of NOPD’s current practices and compliance, they serve as an informative benchmark against which to measure change over time.
We analyzed the following data, which often correlate to the level of force used:
 The presence of video recording of use of force
 Presence of multiple officers on scene
 On scene supervisory presence
 Use of force statements
 Supervisory review of use of force
 Supervisor interviews of use of force subjects
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 23 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Supervisory justification of use of force
 Photographing of use of force subjects
 Force Factor analysis
 Subject’s resistance
As explained below, our analysis identified important shortcomings in NOPD’s reporting and record keeping practices.
2. Video Recording Of Use Of Force Incidents
Most uniformed NOPD police officers now wear Body Worn Cameras and a growing number of patrol cars now include in-car cameras. The value of police cameras has been gaining significant national attention over the past few years and NOPD’s adoption of these best practices reflects favorably upon the Department, and represents a critical step toward transparency and openness – and compliance with the Consent Decree. As a timely Washington Post article pointed out recently, though, police cameras are useless if not used properly.11 “Proper use” of video cameras is a broad concept, which includes not only actually having the cameras, but also ensuring they are functional, ensuring they are used properly and consistently, ensuring the product of the cameras (i.e., the video footage) is effectively used by supervisors and investigators, and that such use is properly documented.
The availability and functionality of NOPD’s cameras is discussed in detail in Section XIII.J below. The proper and consistent use of the cameras is the subject of a recently-initiated review by the Monitoring Team, the findings of which will begin to be reported next quarter. The following discussion, in contrast, focuses primarily on the use of video camera footage by supervisors in the context of use of force investigations, and the proper documentation of such use.
Of the 145 Reports we reviewed, as reflected in Figure 3, 49 indicate the event was recorded, while 86 did not.12 (In 10 cases, we were unable to determine whether a recording was made.) While it is possible some of these reports simply failed to note a recording was made, if there are relevant recordings, they should have been noted on the Use of Force Report. Obviously, the existence of relevant video recordings makes it easier for NOPD (and for the Monitoring Team) to determine whether the force applied was reasonable. The absence of recordings creates not only substantive difficulties for the supervisors, investigators, and the

11

See “Police Cameras are Important, But They’re Useless Without Policies To Ensure They’re Used

Properly,” Washington Post (Aug. 19, 2014).

12

Importantly, our review found that, even when video recordings were reported as available by the

investigating sergeant, there was no indication that the videos were reviewed in 49% of the cases. This

finding is discussed in greater detail below.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 24 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Monitoring Team, but also creates justified suspicion among citizens (and among the Monitoring Team). See Appendix 6.

Video Recording Available

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10
0 Available

Not Available

Unknown

Recordings

Figure 3
Since video recordings were not among the items included in the Use of Force Reports we reviewed this quarter, our initial analysis did not undertake to assess the accuracy of the officer’s Force Statement. As noted above, however, the Monitoring Team recently was provided complete real-time access to video recordings and now is reviewing relevant recordings whether or not they were included in the reports in order to permit such findings in the future. Potentially combining recordings, narratives and reports to evaluate use of force instances could be even more promising as our monitoring continues. It is important, therefore, that copies of the video recording are preserved, reviewed by investigating supervisors, and made part of the investigative file forwarded to PIB/FIT for review and over sight.13
In addition to our findings regarding the availability of video footage in the Use of Force files, our review of the data identified an interesting related correlation. The data we reviewed revealed a correlation between the recording of a force event and the level of force used. This finding suggests what many already believe – that is, cameras may reduce the level of force used by officers. Further study is necessary to determine whether this correlation signifies a “cause and effect” relationship. While one can theorize about why camera recordings correlate with lower uses of force, the data clearly demonstrate that it does. With respect to the reason, it is

13

NOPD captures and preserves video recordings on a secure web-based system to which the Monitoring

Team now has full access.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 25 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

perhaps because, when being recorded, officers are cognizant of their actions and better adjust to the heightened emotional energy that comes with any given use of force encounter or “street fighting scenario.”14 Whatever the reason, the data provide additional support for the wisdom of NOPD’s decision to install in-car cameras and Body Worn Cameras, and the critical importance of ensuring they are functional and consistently used.
3. Supervisors Review Of Available Evidence
The Consent Decree identifies a multitude of data gathering, record keeping, and reporting requirements relating to a number of different substantive areas. In the Use of Force area, for example, the NOPD is required to capture officer Force Statements, audio and video recordings, photographs, and more. (CD 85-86) These requirements are important for several reasons; among others, they promote transparency, allow for supervisory oversight, and ensure accountability. These critical results are not achieved, however, unless the information and materials are captured in a manner that facilitates their use. Our review of the Use of Force Reports revealed several shortcomings in this regard.
Of the 145 Use of Force files the Monitoring Team reviewed this quarter, we identified 50 that did not include Force Statements from all involved and witness officers. Further, in 49 of the Use of Force Reports, there was evidence that some or all of the incidents had been recorded, yet the Reports indicated only 25 of those recordings were reviewed by the investigating sergeant. Fifty-nine of the Use of Force Reports indicated that non-NOPD witnesses were present, yet, according to the Reports, only 23 were interviewed – and only five of those were listed as the interview having been recorded. See Appendix 6.
As described below, these findings are consistent with several of our other findings flowing out of our compliance audits of the various Districts. For example, the NOPD’s record keeping practices regarding Custodial Interrogations, Photographic Lineups, and Supervisory Responsibilities all are in need of improvement. The Monitoring Team has raised these issues with the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Team and will continue to monitor and report on each of these areas as the NOPD works toward full compliance.
4. The Number Of Officers At The Scene Of A Use Of Force
The data show an interesting correlation between the number of officers on the scene of a use of force and the level of force used. Specifically, use of force encounters with multiple officers are more likely to involve lower levels of force than encounters involving a single officer. See Appendix 3. In fact, for each additional officer at the scene, an officer is 162% more likely to have used less force (either Level 1 or Level 2 force) than greater force (Level 3 or Level 4 force). See Appendix 14 for a description of use of force levels.15

14

See http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-camera.

15

The Consent Decree requires that NOPD uses of force be divided into four levels for reporting and

investigation purposes: Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 26 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D. Supervisor Interviews of Subjects of Uses of Force
The Consent Decree requires that, for all Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force, the investigating supervisor must, among other things, “respond to the scene, examine the subject of the force for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his/her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider.” (CD 86) Level 4 uses of force requires FIT to “respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his or her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider.” (CD 105) The Use of Force Reports we reviewed suggest NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
1. Supervisors At The Scene
The Consent Decree requires a supervisor to respond to the scene of every Level 2, 3, and 4 use of force. (CD 84) The Use of Force reports we reviewed do not demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury. Level 2 uses of force include use of an ECW (including where an ECW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns). Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal. Level 4 uses of force include all “serious uses of force,” as defined in the Consent Decree, and shall be investigated by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team. The Consent Decree defines a “serious use of force” to include (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (6) all canine bites; (7) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject. (CD I.C.14.vvv)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 27 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Supervisor On Scene By Consent Decree Force Level

40

35

30

25

On Scene

20

Not On Scene

15

Unknown

10

5

0 Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Figure 4
As Figure 4 shows, and as one would expect, the data reveal a correlation between the level of force used and a supervisor’s appearance on the scene. As the force level decreases, a supervisor was less likely to have made an appearance. See Appendix 10. Indeed, in the context of a Level 2 use of force, a supervisor arrived on the scene in only slightly more than half of the cases. These data suggest NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this element of the Consent Decree.
2. Supervisors Reviewing Use of Force Reports
The Consent Decree requires an officer’s direct supervisor to review each use of force. Specifically, for a Level 1 use of force, the supervisor must review the Use of Force Report “before the end of the shift during which the Level 1 force was used.” (CD 83) Level 2, 3, and 4 uses of force require the supervisor to respond to the scene of the force. (CD 84) Among other things, the responding supervisor must “review all Force Statements and ensure that all reports include the information required by this Agreement and NOPD policy.” (CD 86g) The supervisor also must “provide a written gist to the Division Commander by the end of the shift documenting the supervisor’s preliminary determination of the appropriateness of the use of force, including whether the force was reasonable and within policy; whether the injuries appear proportionate to the use of force described; and summaries of subject, witness, and officer statements.” (CD 87)
Of the 145 Reports we reviewed, the majority clearly indicated a supervisor reviewed the Report and reached a conclusion regarding the reasonableness of the Use of Force. Indeed, in
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 28 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

80% of the cases, a conclusion (one way or the other) was reached. In 73% of the cases, the supervisor found the use of force to have been reasonable. See Appendix 5.
Supervisor Justification of Use of Force

4% 22%
1%
73%

YES NO Unknown Missing Information

Figure 5
While the Monitoring Team is in the process of reviewing these supervisor findings to make an independent determination regarding the reasonableness of the force used, for present purposes our focus is whether the supervisor had sufficient information to render a reasonableness decision one way or the other in the first place. As noted above, the Use of Force files received by PIB/FIT often were missing information that would be essential to making a valid reasonableness decision. Accordingly, we question the quality of the supervisory review that led to the 73% justification rate. We also find notable that 26% (22% unknown + 4% missing) of the Reports did not reflect a supervisor’s justification or were missing the information necessary to make such a determination. In other words, in one of every four Reports the Monitoring Team reviewed, we were unable to determine if the supervisor found the use of force justified or not.
A 73% justification rate in the face of incomplete files and a 22% missing information rate are clear red flags to the Monitoring Team. We are pursuing both issues diligently and plan to report our detailed findings shortly. At this time, however, NOPD has not demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 29 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

3. Photographs of the Subject
The Consent Decree provides that uses of force (other than a Level 1 use of force) should involve the taking of a photograph of the subject of the force. (CD 86) NOPD procedures similarly require that, for Level 2 and 3 uses of force, the investigating supervisor shall “ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use of force, including audio and video records, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected.” See NOPD PR300.9.2 (emphasis added). The data we reviewed, however, suggest photographs were infrequently taken following Use of Force events.
As reflect in Figure 6, photographs of the subject of the force were taken in only 11 of the Level 2, 3, and 4 reports we reviewed. See Appendix 4.
Subject Photograph As Part of Use Of Force Report

9%

8%

10%

73%

Photo Taken Photo Not Taken Unknown Not Applicable

Figure 6
This figure reflects a universe of 145 reports. A deeper look at the data shows that in a significant number of cases photographs were not taken where they should have been.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 30 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Photograph of Subject By Consent Decree Force Level
60

50

40

Photo Taken

30

Photo Not Taken

20

Unknown or N/A

10

0 Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Figure 7
While the height of the “Photo Not Taken” column in Figure 7 for Level 1 uses of force does not constitute a violation of the Consent Decree since photographs are not required for such minor uses of force, the height of the other “Photo Not Taken” columns does raise concerns. See Appendix 12. NOPD has not demonstrated compliance with this element of the Consent Decree. Moreover, the Monitoring Team has recommended to NOPD in the context of its Use of Force Policy review that photographs should be taken of every subject of a use of force regardless of Level.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 31 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Subject Interview By Consent Decree Force Level

40

35

30

25

Subject Interviewed

20

Subject NOT Interviewed

15

Unknown

10

Subject Refused Interview

5

0 Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Figure 8
Figure 8 presents a “cross tabulation” of Consent Decree Force Level and whether or not the primary subject was interviewed after the use of force encounter. Level 1 uses of force had the most subjects not being interviewed, however, subject interviews are not required for Level 1 uses of force. At level two, the subject was equally likely to be interviewed or not, although three subjects refused to be interviewed, and in one instance, it was unknown whether the subject of the force was interviewed. At level three, the subject was about twice more likely than not to be interviewed. See Appendix 11. However, at level three, there was an instance of uncertainty about whether or not an interview took place, and two instances of this at level four.16 In summary, NOPD has not demonstrated compliance with the Consent Decree requirement involving use of force subject interviews.
E. Relationship Between Use of Force and Use of Force Statements
The Consent Decree requires that Use of Force Reports identify all officers who were involved in the use of force. (CD 86) The Consent Decree further provides that “[a]ll officers using a Level 1 through Level 4 use of force, and officers observing a Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 use of force, shall write a Force Statement before the end of shift, which shall be included in the Use of Force Report.” (CD 78) Of the 145 reports we reviewed, 94 of them (64.8%)

16

While Figure 8 suggests at least five Level 4 incidents lacked a subject interview, a separate review of FIT

files confirmed that FIT did interview the subject in each of these cases.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 32 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

included Force Statements by all involved and witness officers.17 Forty six Reports (31.7%) did not include a Force Statement by all officers.
As noted earlier in this Quarterly Report, however, 64 of the Use of Force Reports we reviewed involved a Level 1 use of force, which do not require a statement by witness officers. (CD 78) Thus, potentially, the Use of Force Reports without Force Statements by all officers could all be Level 1 uses of force. To determine whether that explained the 46 Reports missing required Force Statements, we segregated the date by Consent Decree force level.

Reports With All Force Statements By Consent Decree Force Level
40

35

30

25

20

YES

15

No

10

5

0 Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Figure 9
Figure 9 provides a “cross tabulation” of Consent Decree Force Level and whether or not Use of Force Reports were filed by all officers involved in the incident as required by the Consent Decree. The data show that the missing Force Statements do not all fall within a Level 1 use of force. At Level 2, 79% of all incidents had all involved officers filing Force Statements, compared to 21% of incidents where not all officers filed a Statement. At level three, 84% of all incidences resulted in all involved officers filing a Force Statement, compared to 16% of all incidents which did not. Finally, at level four, 56% of all incidents had all involved officers filing a Force Statement, compared to 44% of incidents which did not. Consequently, NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.

17

NOPD policy defines “involved officer” as any officer using force in the incident. A witness officer is any

officer who witnessed the use of force, but was not directly involved in its application.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 33 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

F. Force Factor Analysis
In addition to an analysis of reporting and injury variables found in the files, we were able to analyze subject/officer interactions. Based upon the available information in the files, we were able to classify each use of force event in the context of the degree of resistance by the subject of the use of force. The relationship between the degree of resistance and the degree of force is known as the “Force Factor.” The Force Factor compares the maximum level of force used by the officer to the maximum level of resistance encountered. The “Force Factor” methodology is used by academics, monitors, and police departments in the United States and beyond to evaluate the relative levels of use of force to subject resistance.18 While other variables obviously factor into force assessments, the comparison of force to resistance has proven to be highly informative analytical tool.
To calculate the Force Factor for the 145 Use of Force Reports made available to the Monitoring Team, we coded each uses of force by degree of resistance (Degree of Resistance 1 – Degree of Resistance 7) and degree of force (Degree of Force 1 – Degree of Force 7).19 Each scale goes from low to high. For example, a Degree of Force 1 might involve simply an officer’s presence in a uniform, while a Degree of Force 7 involves the intentional discharge of a firearm. Similarly, a Degree of Resistance 1 involves complete submission and compliance by the subject of the force, while a Degree of Resistance 7 involves the use of lethal force by a firearm. (Descriptions of the several degrees of resistance and force are described in Appendix 1.)
The data then can be analyzed in a number of ways, for example, over time, by geographic location, and by demographic information.
The Force Factor is calculated simply as follows:
ࡻࢌࢌ࢏ࢉࢋ࢘ ࡲ࢕࢘ࢉࢋ ࡭࢖࢖࢒࢏ࢋࢊ െ ࡿ࢛࢈࢐ࢋࢉ࢚ ࡾࢋ࢙࢏࢙࢚ࢇ࢔ࢉࢋ ൌ ࡲ࢕࢘ࢉࢋ ࡲࢇࢉ࢚࢕࢘
A negative value indicates a higher level of subject resistance as compared to the level of officer force. A value of 0 indicates proportional force to the level of resistance. Positive values indicate increasing levels of force being used vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. Negative values indicate less force vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. One expects to see most uses of force in the -1 to +1 range. In other words, one expects the level of officer force applied to be equal to or no more than one step beyond the level of subject resistance. Our Force Factor assessment for this quarter gave us the following results:

18

Over the years, much research on use of force by police has focused on the highest level of force used by the

officer or the highest level reached in an encounter. Our analysis focuses on the level of force used by the police

relative to the resistance from the subject of the force, which we call the “force factor.” For additional

information regarding the “Force Factor” methodology, see Alpert, Geoffrey and Dunham, Roger, “Force Factor:

Measuring Police Use of Force and Suspect Resistance,” National Institute of Justice (1997).

19

Force levels 8 and 9 involve somewhat special circumstances. Force level 8 involves the use of a chemical

agent for crowd dispersal – a very rare event. Force factor 9 involves the pointing of a firearm – an act for

which it is difficult to determine the amount of force actually exerted, and therefore is treated separately.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 34 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

40 35 30 25 20 15 10
5 0
‐3

Force Factor Calculation

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

Force Factor

Figure 10
As Figure 10 illustrates, most of the use-of-force incidents we reviewed this quarter – based upon the information contained in the NOPD investigation file – involve a Force Factor of between -1 and +1. In other words, in this quarter, instances of disproportionate force to resistance existed, but did not dominate the data we reviewed. Importantly, this finding does not provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the officer’s decision to use force in any given situation. The Monitoring Team will base those assessments upon a review of the totality of the available evidence, including reports, witness statements, video recordings, and more; not on a statistical analysis.
Further, as noted above, this finding goes only as far as the data reviewed. Obviously, police uses of force not reflected in Use of Force Reports are NOT reflected in our data. Likewise, Use of Force Reports that include inaccurate accounts of the events could skew the results of our assessment as well. In any event, the Monitoring Team is in the process of exploring methods to identify uses of force NOT reflected in Use of Force Reports, for example, by comparing PIB complaints to Use of Force Reports, IPM complaints to Use of Force Reports, as well as hospital reports to Use of Force Reports.20 The Monitoring Team also is in the process of reviewing video footage and assessing information beyond the Use of Force Reports to reach a conclusion as to whether the specific uses of force were completely and accurately documented, and reasonable.

20

As demonstrated by the formula above, force factor does not provide information concerning the level of

force employed by the officer, but rather the difference between the level of force employed and the level

of resistance encountered (i.e., force factor is a relative measure, not an absolute measure).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 35 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IX. Stops, Searches & Arrests (CD 122-162)
A. Background
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure that all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests be “conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” (CD V) To implement this requirement, the Consent Decree mandates officers record certain of their interactions with citizens by completing a Field Interview Card, otherwise known as an FIC. The Consent Decree requires that “NOPD officers shall continue to require reasonable suspicion to conduct field interviews, and document investigatory field contacts, including field interviews, in accordance with the stop and search data collection requirements of this Agreement.” (CD 126)
For years, citizens in New Orleans have complained that police officers engage in racial profiling, conduct unreasonable stops and interviews, and make arrests with insufficient evidence. Accordingly, the practice of completing FICs is an important one because it gives NOPD management (and the Monitoring Team) insight into the reasonableness of stops, detentions, searches, and arrests. When captured correctly and consistently, the resulting data also give NOPD and the Monitoring Team the ability to identify positive or negative trends, patterns, and practices. When misused, however, FICs, at best, fail to achieve their intended purpose, and, at worst, give a false impression of the actions of NOPD’s officers.
NOPD’s current FIC policy falls short of giving officers meaningful guidance regarding the use of FICs. Current NOPD policy similarly fails to provide meaningful guidance regarding the completion of Electronic Police Reports (EPR). Indeed, this later point is one of the factors that may have led NOPD officers to not have a clear understanding of the administration, utility, and impact of the FIC program. While NOPD has drafted a revised FIC policy, which the Monitoring Team has reviewed, even this revised policy, in its current state, fails to provide adequate guidance to officers.21 The challenge, thus, remains that, if the FIC policy is not clear and the training on the usage of FICs is not effective, the perception and usage of FICs by NOPD officers will remain in its current confused state.
In light of the importance of the FICs to a number of Consent Decree elements, including, among others, bias-free policing (CD 177-194), policing free of gender bias (CD 195222), stops, searches, and arrests (CD 122-162), and use of force (CD 27-110), the Monitoring Team began reviewing NOPD’s FIC processes and data this quarter.22 Our review is not the first close look at the FIC process by an independent body, however. In 2013, the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an in-depth audit of the NOPD FIC data. See

21

Because the Monitoring Team’s evaluation of the NOPD’s revised FIC policy was not provided to NOPD

until after the close of this reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team has not yet had the opportunity to see if

and how the new NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit will act upon the evaluation.

22

While this Report focuses on the FIC data from the perspective of monitoring police behavior, the FIC

system was designed to protect citizens by facilitating the identification of suspects and enhance the overall

system of law enforcement. OIG FIC Audit at iv.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 36 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“Inspection of the New Orleans Police Department Field Interview Data Reported from January to June of 2011: Final Report by the Office of the Inspector General” (March 12 , 2013) (hereafter “OIG FIC Audit”). The OIG looked at data from January through June 2011, focusing primarily on the FIC data relating to “stops and frisks.” The goal of the OIG FIC Audit was to determine whether NOPD officers were complying with legal requirements to stop individuals only upon “reasonable suspicion.”
The OIG’s findings were quite troubling. They revealed significant inadequacies in NOPD’s FIC practices. In fact, the OIG concluded that NOPD’s FIC practices made it “virtually impossible” for any entity to accurately review and assess the validity and reliability of the FIC program. OIG FIC Audit at iv-v. The OIG went on to note that its inspectors “were forced to forego planned analyses due to the discovery of fundamental flaws with the NOPD’s method of collecting and reporting field interview data.” Id. at vi.23
The OIG’s concerns did not come as a surprise to the Monitoring Team. In our many interactions with NOPD officers and supervisors since our appointment in August 2013, we have witnessed a stunning lack of consistency among officers regarding when and how FICs should be completed. One task force officer who had placed a motorist in handcuffs in the course of a traffic stop informed us he would not be completing an FIC because FICs did not have to be completed for traffic stops. An FIC, however, should have been completed once the officer decided to detain the subject.24
It is likely this sort of inconsistency in officer understanding of the FIC process that prompted DOJ to note in its findings letter that “officers reported that they rarely, if ever, find FIC data useful.” Unfortunately, little has changed since DOJ’s investigation and the OIG’s subsequent audit. This is particularly troubling considering the critical role FICs should play in ensuring constitutional policing.
B. Methodology
The Monitoring Team randomly selected 101 FICs to review this quarter. This sample was selected from the total population of FICs reported by NOPD from October 1, 2013 to June 26, 2014. The Monitoring Team reviewed each card in the sample, and examined any associated Electronic Police Reports (EPR). An EPR is an incident report submitted in an electronic format that an officer completes at the time of or shortly after an incident.
In order to provide a different perspective of the FIC program, the Monitoring Team also surveyed a random sample of NOPD officers to obtain their views of the FIC process. The academic literature strongly supports the measuring of police officers perception toward programs and initiatives. In law enforcement, as in most environments, perception often dictates action. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team surveyed 50 NOPD randomly selected officers. Each

23

NOPD did make changes to the FIC form pursuant to recommendations from the OIG.

24

The Monitoring Team did not observe the traffic stop or the placing of the individual in handcuffs.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 37 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

officer completed a short questionnaire relating to the FIC process. Some of the more notable findings have been incorporated into the various discussions below.
While our officer survey was met with cooperation and interest on the part of the officers, our review of the data was not so straightforward. From the outset, our analysis was hampered by the disorganization of the FIC data, the manner in which it is isolated from other databases, and the absence of a single database encompassing all arrest-related information, for example, FIC data and arrest reports. With the assistance of NOPD’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit, however, we were able to gather the material needed to conduct a meaningful analysis.
C. Findings
1. Field Interview Cards Are Not Being Completed Consistently
Over the past quarter, the Monitoring Team met with many police officers, supervisors, and other NOPD personnel from every police district. These meetings involved discussions of – and observations of – the NOPD FIC process. The picture drawn by these discussions is consistent with the findings from our FIC survey. Specifically, most officers quite candidly indicated they did not know when a FIC card must be completed. And those who did claim to understand NOPD’s FIC policy had it wrong as often as they had it right.25
Our discussions with officers also suggested supervisors do not routinely review FIC data. Our survey of officers supports the accuracy of this observation. Sixty-two percent of the officers we surveyed believed supervisors were not reviewing FIC data regularly. Moreover, as discussed in greater detail below, our personal observations suggest that many within the NOPD community do not fully appreciate the importance of the FIC cards and the data they are intended to collect.
Unfortunately, we were not able to conduct a fully quantitative assessment regarding the completeness of the FIC database this quarter. In order to undertake such an analysis, one must be able to compare the FIC data to some other source that would indicate whether an FIC should have been prepared. This is a difficult task since FICs are recorded in one database while the comparative sources are maintained elsewhere. The task is further complicated because the FIC designator (a unique number that identifies a specific FIC) at times does not match the corresponding data source locator. Despite these challenges, the Monitoring Team was able to analyze a sufficient sample of FICs and their corresponding EPRs. However, for the reasons discussed below, the available data, in its current format, did not permit a robust comparison of FIC data and EPR data. Future quarters, however, will include a more detailed multidimensional quantitative assessment. In addition to the current analysis involving the comparison of the FIC data to EPR data, the Monitoring Team also is considering comparing the data against IPM complaints, PIB complaints, jail records, and hospital records.

25

It should be noted here, however, that we are talking only about the requirement to document the field

interview – not the propriety of the field interview in the first place.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 38 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Information on Field Interview Cards NOPD’s FIC cards require the officer to record certain key information regarding the policy/citizen encounter. This information includes gender, race, time, date, and more. While the accuracy of the information was difficult to assess due to the absence of corresponding records, the sample of FICs reviewed did appear to have been completed correctly by the officers. In other words, information that was supposed to be included generally was included, and information explained in a narrative was consistent with information recorded in check boxes. One indicator of inaccurate data is inconsistencies between the check boxes and the text. Our review did not reveal any such inconsistencies, at least with respect to the sample reviewed. Although encouraging, this finding is not a conclusion the information on the FICs is accurate or the FICs are consistently being completed when they should be. As noted above, the Monitoring Team is in the process of engaging in a larger examination of FICs with different baselines, will allow for a more precise assessment on the accuracy and completeness of the cards.
3. NOPD’s Policy Regarding FIC Completion is Not Clear As mentioned previously, the current FIC policy falls short of providing effective guidance for NOPD officers. This lack of guidance is reflected in our conversations with officers and in the results of the officer survey. While the FIC program has been operational for some time, officers still lack a clear appreciation of the administration, utility, and impact of the FIC program. Even the proposed policy continues to incorporate significant shortcomings, but the Monitoring Team is encouraged that NOPD’s new Consent Decree Implementation Unit understands those shortcomings and is working to remedy them. In addition to revising its current policy, NOPD also should make a greater effort to communicate the importance of the FIC process to officers and supervisors. Almost one quarter of the respondents conceded they have not yet reviewed NOPD’s FIC policy. See Appendix 15.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 39 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Officers Who Reviewed FIC Policy

24%

Read Policy

76%

Did Not Read Policy

Figure 11
When this statistic is coupled with the fact that almost 25% of the officers we surveyed did not believe the FIC process played an important role in constitutional policing, one is left with the distinct impression that NOPD is not doing an adequate job communicating the reasons for and importance of the FIC process. Indeed, 96% of the officers surveyed believed that better education and communication is warranted in this area. See Appendix 15. As noted above, these findings are consistent with what we are seeing on the street with respect to the inconsistency of when the FICs are being filled out. Without effective communication, officers are likely to view the requirement as “just another report.” But, for all the reasons discussed above, the FIC process it not “just another report.” It is a report that permits those who care to take a close and meaningful look at the manner in which the NOPD is interacting with citizens – an issue that goes to the very heart of the Consent Decree.
The inconsistent application of the FIC process shows itself again in the views officers hold regarding the disciplinary process. Almost 1/3rd of the officers in our survey believed they would not be disciplined for failing to complete the FICs correctly. See Appendix 15.
Finally, as noted earlier, the NOPD is currently in the process of updating its FIC Policy and that a new software regarding FICs is going to be in place in the near future. Although this is encouraging, the confusion among officers regarding the FIC process highlights a need for immediate action.
4. NOPD’s Policy Regarding Arrest Reports Makes a Full Field Interview Card Review Difficult
Our preliminary findings identified a significant number of FICs involving an arrest, but for which we could find no associated electronic police report. NOPD explained that the “missing” reports were not missing at all; they never were created. Apparently, NOPD does not
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 40 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
require an EPR in all instances where an arrest is made. NOPD provided the Monitoring Team with a process diagram (below) purporting to explain when electronic arrest reports are not required. Our review of the policies cited by NOPD, coupled with the process diagram, gives us concern that NOPD does not have a clear policy regarding the completion of arrest reports.
Figure 12
It is the view of the Monitoring Team (as it was the view of the OIG) that NOPD’s current processes make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for any entity (the Monitoring Team, the IPM, the OIG, or NOPD itself) to monitor the FIC process in its current form. With multiple policies providing exemptions to the completion of supporting documentation (e.g., EPRs) and searches for supporting FIC information having to be performed in different data bases, it is a challenge for any competent authority to validate the FIC process. For instance, the Monitoring Team found that of the total FICs reviewed, 34% of them showed that an arrest was made even though a supporting EPR was not immediately located. While NOPD has noted a supporting EPR is not required in every arrest, the absence of EPRs adds to the challenge of evaluating the FIC process.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 41 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

FICs With And Without Police Reports

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% EPR Available

No EPR Available

FIC Cards

Figure 13
While we will leave for another quarter the wisdom of making arrests without an EPR (as well as the confusion caused by multiple policies regarding the making of such reports), the absence of that information negatively impacts critical analysis of the FIC data.
D. Recommendations
Based upon the Monitoring Team’s preliminary observations and analyses this quarter, we recommend NOPD consider the following improvements to its FIC process.
 Develop a FIC policy that clearly states when FICs must be completed and that delineates in a clear manner the instances where an EPR would be required (or not).
 Develop an arrest report policy that requires an arrest report be completed for all arrests.
 Train all officers on when and how to use FICs.
 Consider developing a single database that houses FIC data and arrest report data or adding an arrest component to the new FIC system currently under development.
 Develop an internal audit protocol that will permit the internal review and analysis of FIC data.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 42 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The Monitoring Team believes taking these steps will help ensure the FIC process plays the important role contemplated by the Consent Decree – and by the NOPD.
X. Custodial Interrogations (CD 163-170)
Custodial interrogations, as the name implies, are interviews (interrogations) of suspects while in police custody. They are typically, but not always, conducted in an NOPD interrogation room, in a police station, by one or more officers. To ensure the fairness and constitutionality of such interrogations, most interrogations must be recorded by audio and video.
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to take certain steps to ensure officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ constitutional rights. To meet the requirements of the Consent Decree, custodial interrogations must be conducted professionally and effectively so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. (CD VI)
Due to the direct impact on citizen constitutional rights, the Monitoring Team reviews custodial interrogation material every quarter. Such material include databases, logs, and, of course, recordings of actual interrogations. Our findings for this quarter follow.
A. Structure, Location, and Recording (CD 163-165)
Paragraph 163 of the Consent Decree requires that officers not “use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual’s family during custodial interrogations.” Paragraph 164 provides, among other things, that “all custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded. All recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety.” Paragraph 165 provides that, “any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau.”
The Monitoring Team reviewed multiple recordings in each NOPD District this quarter and did not observe any indication of physical violence or threat of physical violence. However, of the eight districts visited by the Monitoring Team, only four districts were able to retrieve all the audio/video recordings of custodial interrogations requested by the Monitoring Team.26 This obviously is a concern and it has been brought to the attention of the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit.
Of those Districts that were able to produce at least some recordings for our review, we made the following findings:
 One District was able to retrieve only one recording requested by the Monitoring Team.

26

One District could not be assessed because platoon personnel were unavailable when we visited.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 43 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 One District conceded it did not know how many recording were available.
 Most Districts did not maintain complete and accurate logs of their recordings.
 One District was able to produce some recordings for the Monitoring Team’s review, but, when these were reviewed, the recordings were mostly static without audio.
 One District was capable of video recording, but had to rely on hand-held recorders to record audio. This made it very hard to review video and audio at the same time.
 One District produced recordings that began while the interrogation already was in progress – a clear non-compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.
In the face of these obvious shortcomings, the Monitoring Team did not find any materials documenting equipment failure in either the case files or in NOPD’s central files.
Obviously, the foregoing findings are of great concern. While we are encouraged by what we saw on the tapes we were able to review, we are discouraged by the (i) lack of accurate logs maintained by the Districts and (ii) by the high number of unavailable recordings. Accordingly, NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree.
B. Interview Notes in Case Files (CD 166)
Closely related to NOPD’s obligations regarding recording custodial interrogations is its obligation to “maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations.” (CD 166) Of the recordings the Monitoring Team was able to review this quarter, no officer was observed taking notes. That being said, we did attempt to review the case files associated with the interrogations to look for notes there. Unfortunately, none of the Districts were able to provide case files to determine whether notes were included in the case files. Some case files were not produced because the Districts were unable to tie the recording to the case and failed to keep a log as required by the Consent Decree. Other cases weren’t available since some District personnel stated they didn’t keep the case file on hand but packaged it for delivery as evidence to Central Evidence and Property. Accordingly, NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this element of the Consent Decree.
C. Physical Location of Interrogations (CD 167)
With respect to the physical location of interrogations, the Consent Decree provides that NOPD must “designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.” (CD 167) Our review confirmed
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 44 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

all Districts have at least one designated interview room. As noted above, however, not all are equipped with functioning audio/video recording technology.
D. Interpreters (CD 168)
Paragraph 168 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to use “qualified interpreters for any interrogation of an LEP individual, and Miranda warnings shall be provided to the subject in his or her primary language.” The Consent Decree further provides that, “because of the dual role bilingual NOPD employees may have when conducting an interrogation and simultaneously acting as an interpreter, they should only be used as an interpreter during an interrogation if they have identified themselves as officers or employees of the Department, are authorized as NOPD interpreters, and are trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices, as required by this Agreement and NOPD’s language assistance policy and plan.” (CD 168)
The Monitoring Team was unable to assess compliance with this Consent Decree requirement this quarter because we are awaiting an authorized list of interpreters from NOPD and evidence of their training. Moreover, of the few recordings we had access to this quarter, all were conducted in English.
E. Detective Training (CD 169-170)
Paragraph 169 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “post all detective openings throughout the Department” and to “revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview.” While there were not many detective openings this quarter to observe, the ones we did review generally complied with this requirement. The one deficiency we consistently identified was the requirement for a supervisor’s recommendation. The Monitoring Team discussed the deficiency with the Consent Decree Implementation Unit and was assured that, going forward, a Supervisor’s recommendation would be required.
Paragraph 170 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to have developed and delivered “at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods” by August 9, 2014. The required training must include “legal standards, ethics, the mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions. We note NOPD’s current detectives have not yet received in-service training on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions. We also note that NOPD has not yet conducted detective training, nor has such training been scheduled. 27

27

Subsequent to the close of the current quarter, the NOPD Implementation Unit advised the Monitoring

Team that a schedule for new detective training had been put in place, and that lesson plans would be

provided to the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team will evaluate the substance of the training

materials and the effectiveness of the training in the fourth quarter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 45 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XI. Photographic Line-Ups (CD 171-176)

The Consent Decree requires NOPD “to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.” (CD VII) To meet this obligation, NOPD must undertake a number of specific activities, including ensuring no officer who is involved in the investigation participates in administering the photographic lineup and the individual who administers the lineup has no knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. (CD 171)

Unfortunately, the Monitoring Team was not able adequately to assess NOPD’s compliance with these requirements this quarter because NOPD’s records are not complete. In many of the Districts we visited, NOPD was unable to provide us with a list of cases that involved a photographic line-up. These constraints notwithstanding, the Monitoring Team was able to draw the following conclusions from its observations this quarter.



In one District, only one of fourteen cases we reviewed demonstrated the lineup

officer was different from the investigation officer as required by the Consent

Decree. (CD 171) Similarly, only one of the fourteen cases we reviewed

demonstrated the lineup officer was not involved in the underlying investigation

as required by the Consent Decree. (CD 171)



In another District, only three of sixteen cases demonstrated compliance with the

lineup officer being different from the investigation officer; and only two of

sixteen cases demonstrated the lineup officer was not involved in the

investigation. (CD 171)



In one District, on multiple occasions, the officer administering the photographic

line-up informed the witness he/she would be reviewing multiple photographs to

identify a suspect, but then showed the witness only a single photograph. (CD

173)



Several districts did not consistently keep “a complete record of each display

procedure and results” as required by the Consent Decree (CD 174). One district

did keep a log, but it was confusing and the department-wide forms recently

developed and distributed by the NOPD Compliance Bureau were not being

completed in full.

In addition to the foregoing obligations, the Consent Decree also provides that, before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. (CD 172) Only two of the four Districts observed this quarter were able to provide information regarding their photographic line-ups. Of those, one District was able to provide recordings of cases regarding photographic line-ups, which permitted an audit of whether the individual administering the lineup had knowledge as to which photograph depicted
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 46 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
the suspect in the investigation. In each of those cases, the eyewitness was admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. The officers/detectives appropriately read that information from a form developed by the department. The other Districts, however, were unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
The absence of consistent logs and the unavailability of recordings also hindered the Monitoring Team’s ability to fully assess compliance with Paragraph 173 of the Consent Decree. Paragraph 173 requires that NOPD incorporate “filler” photographs—those that do not depict the suspect—of individuals who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator into any photographic lineups. The Consent Decree provides further that “when there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features.” (CD 173) While we did see some evidence of proper use of filler photographs in more than one district we monitored, insufficient evidence was available to draw fair conclusions regarding the NOPD’s overall level of compliance with this requirement.
Paragraph 174 requires NOPD to “keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up.” Here again the Monitoring Team observed the absence of records, incomplete records, and in one case inaccurate records. NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this requirement.
Finally, paragraph 175 provides that NOPD must document other information pertinent to a photographic display procedure, “including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure.” Paragraph 176 provides that “if a suspect selection is made, NOPD agrees to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used. It shall be kept as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part of the permanent case file.” While the available records made a thorough assessment of these requirements impossible, the records we were able to review demonstrate inconsistent compliance with this requirement – although we do note that some Districts were able to document compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
XII. Academy and In-Service Training (CD 245-288)
The Department of Justice’s investigation of the NOPD resulted in harsh criticism of NOPD’s training program. Among other things, DOJ found “the training NOPD has for the past several years provided to its officers is severely deficient in nearly every respect, compromising officer and public safety, effective crime reduction, and the credibility and reputation of the Department as a whole.” DOJ Findings Letter at xiv. Consequently, the Consent Decree incorporates significant and extensive provisions regarding training.
Ideally, the Monitoring Team would be able to focus on NOPD training after the approval and implementation of the Department’s new policies. This is not possible here. But
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 47 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

even though most of NOPD’s policies have yet to be approved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team, the issue is too important to let the absence of compliant policies delay our review of the training program. Officers continue to be trained by NOPD even in the absence of new policies, and the Monitoring Team has spent significant time observing that training.

Over the course of this quarter, the Monitoring Team focused on NOPD training from two different perspectives. First, we personally observed the Department’s New Sergeant’s Training, which took place in May 2014. Second, we observed a number of Academy training programs covering a number of topics.

As a result of these efforts, we are of the opinion that NOPD’s training program is a mixed bag. Some of the instruction we observed was substantively high quality, taught by a dynamic instructor using teaching techniques appropriate for an adult audience. On the other hand, some of the instruction we observed was substantively inadequate, dry, and ineffective. A major shortcoming of the training we reviewed was the absence of meaningful lesson plans. While NOPD has notified the Monitoring Team that all lesson plans and curriculum are available at the Training Academy, our observations did not corroborate this representation. We did not see lesson plans for the courses we monitored, nor did we see evidence that the instructors used a lesson plan even if one did exist. Importantly, the members of the Academy staff with whom we spoke conceded that most instructors did not have lesson plans.

The absence of some lesson plans and the lack of quality of others strongly contribute to the risk that training will be inconsistent and ineffective – or at least not as effective as it could be. We have made our views regarding the availability of lesson plans known to NOPD’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit and have been assured the Team is attending to the shortcoming.28

With this as background, our more detailed findings are set forth below.

A. New Sergeant Training

In May 2014, NOPD held its first ever “New Sergeants Training Class.” In addition to giving the new class of supervisors the tools they will need to perform their new responsibilities, the training also was intended to meet the NOPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree. Specifically, Paragraph 314 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors.” The Consent Decree also sets out a list of elements that must be incorporated into the supervisory training.

The new sergeants training took place over the course of four weeks, and comprised approximately 160 hours of instruction. The first week comprised 40 hours of traditional inservice training. The second week was taught by the Department’s Public Integrity Bureau and

28

NOPD hired a Training Academy Curriculum Director just after the quarter came to a close. Additionally,

subsequent to the close of this quarter, the Consent Decree Implementation Unit provided the Monitoring

Team with all training materials currently in their possession.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 48 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
involved conducting investigations and imposing discipline. The third week covered general duties and responsibilities of supervisors in the field. The final week of the program focused on leadership in accordance with standards promulgated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The classes we attended hosted 32 newly promoted sergeants.
Among other things, our team observed supervisor training with an eye toward (i) the correctness of the message, (ii) the appropriateness and organization of the materials, and (iii) the effectiveness of the instruction. We also focused on the instructor’s attitude, knowledge of the subject matter, and use of adult learning techniques.
A summary of our findings follows:
1. Lesson Plans
The Consent Decree requires that NOPD “shall submit all new or revised training curricula and lesson plans for training required by this Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ for review and comment at least 90 days prior to the scheduled date of training delivery.” (CD257) As noted above, we saw no evidence of lesson plans for any of the classes we reviewed. We were provided with a general, 40-week lesson plan overview for FTO training, however, the Instructor was given only two hours for an FTO overview, which obviously rendered the 40-hour lesson plans irrelevant.
2. Handouts and other visuals
Many, but not all, of the classes we observed did use handouts and other visuals, particularly when covering a written directive. This is a best practice and an important component of effective adult teaching. Some of the Instructors we monitored used PowerPoint presentations, which further contributed to the effectiveness of the training. Not all instructors used supporting materials, however, and students clearly were bothered by the absence. One instructor, recognizing the benefits of supporting materials mid-lesson, even apologized to the students for not having handouts.
3. Hands-On Activities
Another best practice in teaching adults is the use of “hands-on” activities. We were pleased that the new sergeant classes that involved teaching of new technologies, for example, body worn cameras, did involve hands-on activities. We also observed other officers incorporate such activities into their training programs even though they were not technology related. For example, one instructor teaching about effective supervision, had the students come up with a list of traits for an effective supervisor. With the help of the instructor, the students developed an impressive list of traits and then interactively discussed the importance of each. Unfortunately, not all instructors were this dynamic, but those that were clearly were rewarded by attentive students.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 49 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. Reference to the Availability of Health Professionals
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to “develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that comports with best practices and current professional standards, which include: readily accessible confidential counseling services with both direct and indirect referrals; critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling; peer counseling; and stress management training.” (CD 289) We were pleased the new sergeants training included references to the availability of mental health professions within the NOPD. At least one instructor made it a point to recognize that supervising is draining intellectually and physically. He emphasized the importance of recognizing and dealing with stress. He reminded the students that the Department offers access to mental health care professionals, and even described a personal experience to drive home the point. While more could have been said regarding the NOPD-wide Health and Wellness program and regarding the Consent Decree paragraphs relating thereto, we were pleased to see the issue included in the training.
5. Policemen vs. Police Officers
Many if not most of the instructors we observed use the term “policeman” in male terms while teaching. While not an issue rising to the level of an improper use of force, it is worth mentioning here. The term is antiquated and bothersome to the Monitoring Team. Equally bothersome was the response from the several female sergeants we asked about the term during a class break. Each sergeant told us the term did not bother them and even suggested they did not even hear the term anymore. We find this troubling. Word choice has consequences whether people think they “hear it” or not. Women have been in policing long enough that instructors and supervisors should be referring to employees as police “officers.” Women and others should not be made to feel excluded by the words some within the NOPD choose to use.
6. The Facility
In many ways, the NOPD’s training facilities are not conducive to effective study. Like many of the District stations we visited, the Training Academy has obvious evidence of age and over-use, with missing ceiling tiles in the bathrooms, paint peeling from numerous walls, and old and uncomfortable desks. The Academy classrooms we visited were warm, if not hot. While fans occasionally were brought in to cool the room, their noise was distracting and often made it difficult to hear the instructor. To the extent the building had air conditioning, it was apparent it was not working. Moreover, the Academy lacks modern computers, which serve as a useful teaching tool in other departments. While we appreciate NOPD’s financial constraints, we nonetheless would be remiss if we did not mention the condition of the facilities and the impact that typically has on effective teaching.
7. The Students
The students generally were attentive throughout the training program and appeared to take the training seriously. Most clearly enjoyed the training, if not the facilities. The new
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 50 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
sergeants with whom we spoke were quite willing to share their views not only on the training program, but on the NOPD generally. Consistent complaints included manpower shortages, poor pay, confusing written directives and policies, broken equipment, and inadequate and/or infrequent training. Officers, however, also had many positive things to say, including giving accolades to the new sergeants training program in general.
8. The Instructors
The quality of the instructors we observed varied, as is to be expected. Many, but not all, used effective adult learning techniques. Many, but not all, used handouts and visuals. Importantly, we observed very little negativity among the instructors toward the NOPD, the training, or the Consent Decree. We observed no rolling of the eyes, no sarcasm, and no inappropriate comments detracting from the sincerity of the lessons. The Monitoring Team identified only one instructor who presented his lesson in a negative light, and brought that incident to the attention of the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit. On the negative side, with some notable exceptions, most of the instructors did not involve the students in handson activities; although, as described above, some did with great success. And, as noted above, few, if any, appeared to use a lesson plan.
9. The Instruction
The most obvious gap in the substance of the instruction was the absence of approved policies. As we have said in prior reports, NOPD cannot have effective training without approved, effective policies. That being said, the instruction did cover many issues critical to constitutional policing, and often did so quite well. The following provides illustrative findings from our review of the various courses offered during the new sergeants training. This list is NOT all inclusive, but does provide a fair summary of our findings.
a. Overview Session
Overall, this session was effective, if somewhat dry and outdated. The lack of an actual lesson plan likely contributed to its sometimes meandering structure. Likewise, the lack of current examples contributed to the dry and outdated feel. But most of the points raised were on target and ethically and professionally based.
Among other things, the instructor discussed the importance of clear instructions from supervisor to officers. He gave meaningful examples of good and bad communication, which drove home the point to the students. He explained the importance of telling officers “why” as opposed to simply commanding them to do something. He counseled the new sergeants to take time to explain their decisions, when appropriate, and to meet with and become involved in officers’ daily activities.
The instructor advised the sergeants to “strive for perfection,” and always adopt policing best practices. While we did not like a description of Constitutional Policing as the “new catch
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 51 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
word,” we did appreciate the instructors seemingly sincere focus on the importance of the issue. He stressed the importance of accurately documenting actions, including stops, to ensure citizens were treated fairly and officers were protected.
b. Roll Call and Inspections Session
Although again there was no lesson plan to guide this training session, which, as already noted, is quite concerning, we nonetheless had a positive impression of this training session. The instructor took time to remind the new sergeants that they should treat all employees with respect and keep relationships professional. He discussed everything that should be worn on an officer’s duty belt and each item’s importance. He involved the students in the discussion and even took the class outside and had them form lines for inspection. He walked the lines and reviewed the officers. He reminded the sergeants about saluting appropriately when wearing a hat or without, and cautioned them about always being respectful of the American flag, particularly during public events and in uniform.
c. SWAT Session
Overall, this class was quite good. While the quality of instruction was mixed, it generally was acceptable – and, in some respects, quite commendable. The instructors introduced themselves, discussed their backgrounds and history with the NOPD, provided an overview of their specialized training, and clearly outlined the topics to be discussed at the outset of the class. The instructors did not appear to have a lesson plan, but did provide and discuss NOPD Policy 414 relating to SWAT call-outs. While these policies have not yet been approved by the Monitoring Team and/or the Department of Justice, the material being taught did comply with applicable law and the United States Constitution. The instructors were energetic and credible and had the full attention of the class. The information provided was relevant, appropriate, and the class was attentive throughout. The instructors even provided their cell numbers, advising the class to call anytime for advice.
d. Vehicle Pursuits
We did not have a positive view of the session concerning Vehicle Pursuits. The discussion of NOPD’s current policy was not well presented and, at times, the substance was concerning. The instructors handed out the policy and asked the class go around the room and take turns reading paragraphs. Since each reader read at a different pace and at a different volume, this approach proved ineffective. Of greater concern is that, in our view, the instructors approached the topic from a very negative perspective. Rather than focusing on the benefits to the officers, the citizens, and the Department of properly conducting vehicle pursuits, the instructors continually focused on the negative consequences to the officers if they do it wrong. For example, the instructors more frequently told officers they would be investigated if they did it wrong than they promoted the advantages to personal and public safety if they did it right.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 52 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team also was concerned that the instructors seemed to believe reading the policy is a sufficient surrogate for effective training. While reading the policy obviously is important, effective training is supposed to go beyond the policy. One instructor, for example, told the students to simply read the policies because they are self-explanatory. This is not an effective teaching technique. It is especially inadequate when the policies and procedures themselves have not been approved yet. At one point, for example, multiple students commented on the confusing nature of NOPD Procedures 314.3 regarding vehicle pursuits. Another area that seemed to confuse the students, and the instructors, related to Procedure 314.5, which refers to the “Platoon Commander” regarding supervision of a vehicle pursuit. The students and the instructors struggled over whether the Lieutenant or the Sergeant was the “Platoon Commander.” The class left confused over this issue, which makes it evident this issue must be clarified in the approved policy.
We also noted a tendency on the part of the instructors to fall into what we call the “back in the day” approach to teaching. One instructor during his discussion of vehicle pursuits, for example, commented that “back in the day, we used to switch to another channel during pursuits so we wouldn’t be taped.” While this sort of anecdote can be effective when it is followed by a firm discussion of the dangers of the old way and the benefits of the new way, such discussion did not follow here.
While instructors did play some pursuit recordings to prompt class discussion, which generally is a good training technique, it appeared to us the resulting class discussion was not focused and the instructors’ message seemed to be lost. The lack of any break during the twohour session probably contributed to the lack of class discipline.
Finally, we noted some substantive deficiencies in the material being taught. The discussion regarding who can call off a chase and under what circumstances, for example, raised more questions than it answered.
e. Crime Scene Management Session
While the Monitoring Team did not observe substantive flaws in the instruction, overall, this class was below average. The instructor did have a PowerPoint presentation, but the Monitoring Team did not see evidence of a lesson plan. While the PowerPoint generally kept the class moving and focused, it clearly was not tailored to supervisors. The lack of such tailoring contributed to the instructor’s inability to keep the attention of the class.
On the positive side, the instructor clearly stated the goals and objectives of the class at the outset. He used practical exercises throughout the class, and effectively discussed the types of actions that can cause problems at a crime scene. The class also would have benefited from handouts and real-life examples. The sergeants seemed interested in the content but the delivery fell short of their expectations.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 53 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
f. Field Training Officer (“FTO”)Program Session
The instructor began class by telling the students he had to cover 40 hours of material in two hours. While perhaps an inauspicious start, the instructor focused on the key points of relevance to supervisors and did a good job holding the attention of the class throughout. He shared the course content and scope of the objectives at the outset, and used projected slides, which, while rather dry, admittedly made the class material easier to follow by the students. Throughout the class the instructor answered questions and gave meaningful real-life examples of the points he was making. He discussed the Consent Decree and explained the new sergeants training was an outgrowth of the Consent Decree. He properly mentioned also that the Consent Decree requires the recruits to evaluate the FTO’s and the FTO Coordinator.
The instructor described the NOPD’s current FTO program as being “in shambles” due to a lack of manpower and inadequacies of several current FTOs. The instructor then used this point to emphasize the importance that sergeants take on more field training responsibilities.
g. Use of Force Session
As a preliminary matter, we note the NOPD Use of Force policy has not yet been approved by the DOJ or the Monitoring Team. This significant deficiency notwithstanding, we monitored the Use of Force training to assess the consistency of the information being taught with the Consent Decree and with best practices. While the absence of an approved policy certainly contributed to a less than fully effective session, we generally were pleased by the substance of the instruction. The class clearly was beneficial, well received by the students, and, notwithstanding the lack of an approved policy, was in line with the Consent Decree. We also were pleased with the instructor’s description of a police officer’s job as “a thinking person’s job” rather than a “muscle job.”
The Use of Force session began with a discussion of supervisory responsibilities regarding uses of force. The instructor reviewed the various levels of use of force with the sergeants and emphasized the documentation required following a use of force. He provided samples of redacted Use of Force Reports, and engaged in effective discussions of them with the class. The instructor did a good job keeping the class involved in the subject matter.
The instructor clearly referenced the Consent Decree throughout the session. The Consent Decree was cited, for example, to highlight the requirement that no boilerplate language be used in Use of Force Reports. He emphasized that it always is best to report a use of force if there is any doubt about whether a report is required. The instructor walked through the key Consent Decree terminology and provided useful examples of various levels of force. He engaged the class in a discussion of various use of force scenarios.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 54 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
h. District Attorney Session
Consistent with the Consent Decree requirement that NOPD should incorporate guest speakers as part of its training, the new sergeants training featured an investigator with the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office. (CD 259) The instructor was able to draw upon his time with the DA and his prior 34 years on the NOPD to teach an effective class. He used an effective PowerPoint presentation and provided the class with handouts. The class was attentive. The Instructor was well-prepared and gave good examples based on prior experience and his current job. He answered class questions and provided his phone number so the sergeants could call him with questions.
The instructor used the prosecution process as a vehicle for emphasizing the importance of a quality investigation, effective report writing, and good overall policing. He explained to the officers that everything about a case is scrutinized by the DA’s office prior to prosecution and throughout the judicial process.
i. Body Worn Cameras Session
The Monitoring Team was pleased with the substance and effectiveness of the training, and recognized it was consistent with the approved policy. The instructor focused primarily on NOPD’s new Body Worn Camera policy, approved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team in March 2014. He reviewed the key elements of the Policy and answered questions about the cameras. He had the cameras available on the students’ desks and gave them the opportunity to operate them to upload footage from the cameras. The instructor discussed key privacy issues relating to cameras and stressed that they could be used only for professional work purposes. The students were engaged in this lecture and asked good questions.
j. FOB Session
This session introduced the students to the day-to-day job functions of a new sergeant. The instructor addressed the basic duties of a sergeant, including things as mundane as checking e-mails regularly, completing activity logs, and writing reports. Topics also included more complicated topics like supervising pursuits by radio and use of body worn cameras. The instructor did an excellent job. He was very well-versed in the subject matter and appeared to maintain the full attention of the new sergeants throughout the session. The students appeared to enjoy the opportunity to ask questions of an active sergeant.
B. Observations on Racial Profiling Training
In addition to the new sergeants training, the Monitoring Team also personally observed NOPD’s in-service training to officers regarding racial profiling. Where legal issues were covered, the training was consistent with the law; however, the training overall was weak and ineffective. Rather than giving the issue the prominence it deserves by making it a stand-alone class topic, NOPD currently teaches the issue in in-service training in the context of community
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 55 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
policing. Further, of the three hours devoted to the entire class, only a small segment covered “impartial policing.” The rest covered “community policing” – an important issue to be sure, but an issue that is distinct from racial profiling. The Monitoring Team also was unimpressed by the video NOPD currently presents during the class. Not only is the information in the video dated, but it largely ignores the contemporary literature on racial profiling, which includes case law, practices, methods of deterrence, and the inclusion of gender identity, place of origin, and religious affiliation in the overall discussion. The Monitoring Team is working closely with the Consent Decree Implementation Unit to bring NOPD’s racial profiling training up to national standards.
XIII. Supervision (CD 306-331)
The Consent Decree requires that NOPD and the City “ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct.” (CD XV) To achieve these outcomes, the Consent Decree identifies a number of specific actions that NOPD and the City must take.
The Monitoring Team spent significant time this quarter focusing on NOPD supervision and supervisors. As a preliminary note, we received the full cooperation of the supervisors with whom we dealt and generally observed a genuine desire to achieve and maintain compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree. Our requests for records were responded to promptly and where records were not available, the supervisors indicated they would implement enhancements to their systems to ensure such records were available in an organized state on our next visit. With this as general background, our specific findings are set out below.
A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306)
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD supervisors “be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers.” The paragraph goes on to explain that “close and effective supervision requires that supervisors: respond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties.” (CD 306)
While the Monitoring Team was unable to fully assess compliance with the supervision requirements this quarter due to the unavailability of complete records, we were able to draw several conclusions based upon the available data.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 56 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 We did see evidence that supervisors responded to the scene of arrests as required by the Consent Decree, however, we could not assess the consistency of such responses.
 Our preliminary reviews of police reports suggest that supervisors do review such reports as required by the Consent Decree. Likewise, we did see evidence that supervisors were reviewing officer daily activity reports. Again, however, the team will have to review a larger universe of data before drawing definitive conclusions regarding compliance.
 The Districts we visited were unable to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate counseling or redirection. Nor were the Districts able to produce sufficient evidence of disciplinary action to hold officers accountable for violations of rules and regulations. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate a list of counseling memos or disciplinary actions initiated, which prevents us from assessing whether NOPD is in compliance with this requirement. Moreover, the absence of such a list in the Districts raises the question of how the supervisors are able to provide the “close and effective” supervision required of the consent decree.
 We did not identify evidence in the Districts that supervisors worked to engage the community as required by the Consent Decree. While such engagements may have taken place – and we suspect some did – such activities were not included in the supervisor activity reports we reviewed. Nor did we see evidence that supervisors were held accountable for performing or not performing such duties.29
 One particular District Platoon Lieutenant we observed was able to produce a file for each officer assigned to his platoon. The file contained letters of appreciation from the public, written counseling, awards, disciplinary reports, use of force reports, and job enhancement performance reports. The lieutenant and his sergeants on that shift appeared to maintain quite good documentation of good and poor performance and the actions they took as supervisors to address the performance of officers under their command. The Monitoring Team commends this team’s efforts and has brought the accomplishment to the attention of NOPD management. The vast majority of shift supervisors, however, could not produce any documentation or subordinates’ performance.

29

Each NOPD District has a sergeant who serves as the District’s designated “community-oriented liaison.”

Known as Community Affairs Coordinators, or CoCos, these sergeants serve an important role in educating

the public, engaging the community, and generally promoting police/community relations. CoCos,

however, are not a substitute for officer and supervisor involvement in community matters. The Consent

Decree requires that supervisors provide “close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide

officers,” including ensuring “that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase

public trust and safety . . . .” (CD 306)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 57 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Most Districts were unable to provide evidence of responding to citizen complaints. Most simply referred the Monitoring Team to PIB. While we recognize the important role PIB plays in taking, investigating, and responding to citizen complaints, supervisors also play a critical role in such matters. If supervisors are unaware of citizen complaints, we question how they can provide “close and effective” supervision of the officers under their command.



The supervisor activity reports we reviewed failed to capture meaningful

information to facilitate “close and effective supervision.” The reports do not

document whether the supervisor responded to the scene of certain arrests,

reviewed each arrest report, responded to the scene of uses of force, investigated

each use of force, responded to each complaint of misconduct, ensured that

officers were working actively to engage the community and increase public trust

and safety, or provided counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed.

Indeed, in our review, the supervisors’ activity reports we reviewed were little

more than officer activity report with the word “supervisor” replacing the word

“officer” in the title of the form. The form fails to differentiate the

responsibilities of a supervisor and signifies the supervisor completes the same

duties as an officer. In short, the supervisor’s activity report is inadequate to

document the function of a supervisor.

While we have seen evidence that many supervisors do the foregoing things (as well as evidence that some to do not), without adequate documentation we cannot find NOPD in compliance with its Consent Decree obligations in this area.

In addition to our review of the District files, we also sought to gain a better understanding of supervisor performance by surveying the officers being supervised. While the details of this survey are discussed elsewhere in this report, at least one finding is worth mentioning here. Specifically, a majority of officers surveys agreed that their supervisor gives them regular feedback on their quality of work (73.7%). Of course, this also means that 1 in 4 believed they were not receiving regular feedback.

B. Single Supervisor (CD 307)

Paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree provides that, by May 6, 2014, “all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor.” In general, NOPD’s personnel records provide evidence that NOPD officers are assigned to a single supervisor in most districts. We observed at least 3 supervisors assigned to each platoon of 8 -12 officers. Additionally, four Districts (1, 2, 3, and 8) were able to demonstrate compliance with this obligation this quarter. While Districts 5, 6, and 7 may actually be in compliance, they were unable to produce adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance to the Monitoring Team.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 58 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
During the course of this quarter, NOPD restructured its task forces. Specifically, the Department merged its District level narcotics group and its District level task force into a single unit. As a result of this merger, the NOPD reduced supervision from two sergeants to one sergeant. The officers assigned to this new unit work various days and shifts that differ from the hours and shifts the supervisor is scheduled to work. The result of working these overlapping shifts and different days is that the officers assigned to general assignments are supervised by various platoon supervisors. This violates paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree.
C. Supervisor Hours (CD 308)
Paragraph 308 of the Consent Decree provides that “task force and narcotics supervisors shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill.” Paragraph 308 goes on to provide that “investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap.” Five Districts (1, 2, 3, 4, and 8) were able to demonstrate compliance with this obligation this quarter. While Districts 5, 6, and 7 may actually be in compliance, they were unable to produce adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance to the Monitoring Team.
One potential concern we note involved NOPD’s narcotics and task force units. When a sergeant is not on duty in those units, a platoon supervisor serves as the unit’s supervisor. With the merger of task force and narcotics personnel into the General Assignments section of the district, the sole supervisor for these officers no longer works the same shift and days as the officers assigned to the supervisor. This violates section 308 of the Consent Decree.
D. Platoon Supervisor Assignments (CD 309)
Paragraph 309 of the Consent Decree provides that “District Platoon Patrol supervisors shall be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill.” Five Districts (1, 2, 3, 4, and 8) were able to demonstrate compliance with this obligation this quarter. While Districts 5, 6, and 7 may actually be in compliance, they were unable to produce adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance to the Monitoring Team.
E. Supervisor Ratios (CD 310)
Paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree provides that “first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. On duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 59 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. Due to changes in the structure of the NOPD assignments relating to Task Forces, NOPD was not able to demonstrate consistent compliance in Districts 5, 6, and 7. In Districts 6 and 7, which have implemented a new “general assignment” unit in each district, there is not yet enough documentation to determine whether the detectives assigned to this unit will be supervised by platoon supervisors. The new assignments may require platoon supervisors to supervise more than eight officers.
The general assignments designation for officers previously assigned to task forces and narcotics have been implemented city wide. Although no instances of a supervisor supervising more than eight subordinates occurred during this audit due to this reassignment, there exists the possibility that there could be more than eight personnel reporting to one supervisor if the entire narcotics unit or task force unit worked while reporting to a platoon supervisor when there was only one platoon supervisor on duty.
F. Fill-In Supervisors (CD 311)
Paragraph 311 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD develop and implement by May 6, 2014 “a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. NOPD shall ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent nonacting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks.” NOPD was not able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The Training Academy has not developed such a program nor has it trained any personnel as acting patrol supervisors. Our review revealed that no personnel in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 had attended training for acting supervisors.
G. Close and Effective Supervision (CD 312)
Paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree requires that District commanders and platoon lieutenants be responsible “for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command.” The Consent Decree goes on to provide that “All NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement.” Our review this quarter revealed NOPD has taken steps to achieve this requirement, but cannot yet demonstrate full compliance.
One reason NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement is that the supervisors’ activity reports used in the Districts are not designed to capture information showing “close and effective” supervision of officers. The supervisors’ activity sheets do not include direction they provided at roll call, any orders that were conveyed to officers, their expectations while interacting with the public, any counseling they provided, any disciplinary actions initiated, any complaints to which they responded, any monitoring of officer activity on
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 60 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

calls for service or traffic stops, or other actions taken by a supervisor to ensure compliance with paragraph 312 of the consent decree. One platoon lieutenant in one district was able to provide some evidence of compliance with Paragraph 312 by maintaining personnel files on each subordinate officer, which did suggest more oversight that we observed in other Districts.
H. Supervisor Accountability (CD 313)
Consent Decree paragraph 313 requires NOPD to hold its commanders and supervisors30 “directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate.” NOPD was not able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement this quarter. In fact, NOPD was able to produce few documents suggesting a supervisor was given counseling or redirection, and only a few documents were produced to provide evidence of disciplinary action to hold supervisors accountable. Most commands did not have a list of counseling memos or disciplinary actions initiated. Supervisors’ reports did not include information concerning orders relayed from higher authority, counseling provided to officers, direction to officers regarding engagement of the public, or discipline. Supervisors’ performance evaluations were generally not available, few counseling memos were available, and few disciplinary reports were available. Moreover, the performance evaluations we viewed were not adequate to assess supervisors’ performance. The evaluations did not include a section to evaluate “whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations” as required by paragraph 313 of the consent decree. While we recognize NOPD PIB likely maintains evidence of such actions, we question how NOPD can meet with this requirement if the leadership within a District is blind to such data.
In the course of this review, the Monitoring Team did discover one incident worthy of mention here. During a Mardi Gras parade, an officer reported that a young woman ran into him. In contrast, the woman stated she was pushed by the officer. The officer’s supervisor responded to the scene for a complaint registered by the woman’s mother and father. Neither, however, wanted to file a formal complaint with PIB. The officer did complete a Use of Force Report, which indicated the officer was counseled. The Monitoring Team, however, was able to locate no formal counseling memo, or other evidence of counseling. In addition, the parents’ complaint to the sergeant was not passed on to PIB. In short, none of the actions that should have been taken were taken and no supervisor beyond the initial reporting sergeant took any further action to address this matter.
Another incident of lax supervision is worth mentioning here. The Monitoring Team spent a significant amount of time in the various NOPD districts this quarter, observing the

30

The Consent Decree defines a “supervisor” as “a sworn NOPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above

(or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn NOPD personnel with oversight responsibility for

other officers.” (CD C.14.bbbb)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 61 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

officers, the supervisors, and the station surroundings. In District 5, we noticed a 2013 goal on the Roll Call room board that stated “Increase the number of lawful vehicle stops.” The statement, however, was altered with graffiti to read “Increase the number of unlawful vehicle stops.” While we understand every organization has its share of childish behavior, we are concerned that the supervisors did not immediately erase the graffiti and chastise the platoon. Moreover, three different reviews of this same district indicated similar immature behavior. Open displays of undisciplined conduct like this within a district, frequented by district supervisors, fails to comply with commanders and supervisors identifying and effectively responding to misconduct.
I. Early Warning Systems (CD 316-326)
Pursuant to Paragraph 316 of the Consent Decree, the City and NOPD agreed to “develop, implement, and maintain an [Early Warning System] to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible.” An effective Early Warning System is a staple of modern police departments and is a critical tool to ensure effective supervision of officers, identification of problem officers, and identification of patterns and practices that could suggest constitutional and professional policing. An effective system will permit NOPD to “manage risk and liability and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts.” While NOPD has made progress toward meeting this requirement, NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this requirement.
Over the course of this quarter, NOPD evaluated three vendors that responded to a solicitation issued on March 11, 2014. On July 8, 2014 the New Orleans Selection Committee selected Sierra Systems as its preferred vendor to develop the Early Warning System, and entered into contract negotiations. This selection followed a review of three proposals, and subsequent oral presentations from two of the three candidates. Members of the Monitoring Team reviewed the two “finalists” and determined that either could meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team also noted that both offers incorporated features that went beyond the strict requirements of the Consent Decree. For example, the City wants the system it purchases to incorporate data relating to tax forms, employment verification forms, domicile forms, payroll information, and examination applications, among other things. While these features add cost and complexity to the project, they do not violate the terms of the Consent Decree. As of the conclusion of this quarter, NOPD had not made a final vendor selection.31
The City’s efforts to select an EWS vendor evidence progress. Moreover, the City has developed an implementation plan as required by Consent Decree Paragraph 317 and has engaged a “qualified information technology specialist” required by the same paragraph. The creation of an effective EWS is a Consent Decree priority and we believe it to be a priority of the NOPD as well. Currently, District personnel have no database to identify patterns of conduct of

31

Subsequent to the close of this quarter, the City did make a final vendor selection. The City then entered

into contract negotiations with that vendor.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 62 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
officers. This gap impacts many areas of the Consent Decree beyond the EWS requirement itself, including discipline, supervision, bias free policing, use of force and more.
J. In-Car Cameras (CD 327-331)
1. Background
In its 16 March 2011 Findings Letter following its investigation of the NOPD, the Department of Justice recognized NOPD had taken steps to implement technologies designed to promote constitutional policing and officer and citizen safety, including in-car video cameras. The DOJ found, however, that the cameras “are reportedly underused and, particularly with incar cameras, often in disrepair. The DOJ recognized this as an issue of great importance not only to the community, but to the NOPD officers as well. According to DOJ, “[r]ecordings of officercivilian interactions nearly always exonerate an officer, and in any event they allow a department and a community a better opportunity to learn what really happened during controversial incidents.” NOPD itself recognizes this fact, which was impressively demonstrated by an instructor training the Department’s new sergeants who used in-car video footage that exonerated an officer from what appeared to be an unjustified shooting from one camera angle, but clearly was not when the in-car footage of another camera was reviewed.
Consistent with DOJ’s findings, the Consent Decree provided that, by August 2015, NOPD will operate video cameras in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, and SOD canine. (CD 327) The Consent Decree further provides that one-half of those vehicles will be equipped with video cameras by August 2014. (CD 327) NOPD further agreed “to ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities.” (CD 327)
To ensure the effectiveness of the in-car cameras, the Consent Decree required NOPD to develop and implement a schedule for testing the cameras to confirm they are in proper working order by November 7, 2013. (CD 329) The Consent Decree provides that “Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment.” (CD 329) The Consent Decree further provides that “supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed.” (CD 329)
Our review this quarter revealed that, more than three years after DOJ expressed concern over the functioning of the NOPD’s in-car cameras, those camera still often are in disrepair. Indeed, as detailed below, our review found that a significant percentage of the Department’s incar cameras were non-functional. This not only violates the Consent Decree, but it puts citizens and officers at risk. It also fosters an unhealthy cynicism among officers. For example, following the newer sergeants training regarding in-car cameras, several officers approached the Monitoring Team and described the training as “BS” because “the cameras never work anyway.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 63 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

2. Methodology
In order for in-car cameras to be effective, they obviously must function. In order to assess the functionality of NOPD’s in-car cameras, the Monitoring Team personally inspected more than 100 in-car camera. We inspected cameras in each police district.
3. Findings
Our review identified two different problems with the Department’s in-car cameras. First, some cameras simply did not work. Second, some cameras appeared to work, but could not capture video because its storage medium was full. Both problems prevent the cameras from capturing video. The following table summarizes the Monitoring Team’s findings:

In‐Car Camera Functionality By District

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1D

2D

3D

4D

5D

6D

7D

8D Overall

Functional Non‐Functional

Figure 14
Our review revealed several causes for the high levels of non-functional cameras. First, some cameras simply were not functional and our discussions with NOPD officers revealed significant difficulty in getting them fixed by the Department’s technical experts. Second, in many cases, the camera worked, but the storage media was full preventing the camera from capturing additional video.
The in-car cameras are designed to capture video whenever the car has its lights or siren activated or whenever the officer manually turns on the camera. The camera captures video and stores it on an on-board storage unit (similar to the hard drive of a computer). Once the car returns to the District Station, the video footage automatically downloads to the Station’s server.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 64 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Once the downloading process has completed, the footage is deleted wirelessly from the onboard hard drive and the camera is ready to record new video. For this process to work, however, it appears the car (i) must be in the “correct” District station and (ii) must be in the Station parking lot long enough for the video to download. If either condition is not satisfied, the video will not download. It appears this may be the cause of the non-functionality we observed in the 5th, 7th, and 8th Districts.
In light of the above, we conclude NOPD has failed to demonstrate compliance with the elements of the Consent Decree relating to the functionality and use of in-car cameras. The Monitoring Team brought the non-functionality issue to the attention of NOPD’s new Consent Decree Implementation Unit and we understand the Department is working to remedy the noncompliance. The Monitoring Team meets regularly with the Implementation Unit and is independently evaluating the effectiveness of the remedy.
In this context, it also should be pointed out that Paragraph 330 of the Consent Decree provides that Supervisors “shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed. While some Districts were able to produce informal email messages regarding malfunctioning cameras, no District had any formal records of malfunctioning equipment. Indeed, most of the supervisors we spoke to generally claimed to believe their cameras were in working order.
Nor did we find evidence that supervisors were reviewing the recordings of their officers on a consistent – or even periodic – basis. Had they been doing so, they very quickly would have recognized the problems with the cameras.
4. Supervisor Use of Recording Devises
Paragraph 331 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations.” NOPD must comply with this requirement by August 2014.
While not at the due date yet, our review confirmed that recording devices have been issued in each District. Only one supervisor, however, provided evidence that he used the recorder to investigate a use of force incident which is required by this paragraph. No other supervisors indicated use of the recorder nor did they provide evidence of using the recorder to investigate citizen complaints or uses of force. Some supervisors were unable to explain when they are required to use the recorder. One veteran supervisor, when asked to demonstrate use of the recorder, had to open the plastic package in which the recorder was delivered and read the instructions on its proper use.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 65 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

5. Conclusion

In-car cameras now are staples of police departments across the country. It now is well accepted that cameras play a critical role in promoting transparency, securing officer safety, improving officer ability to respond to citizen complaints,32 and in improving a citizen’s ability to ensure effective investigation of potential officer misconduct. Historic evidence shows – and our own findings confirm – that video recording reduces the aggressiveness of officers and of citizens. Prosecutors also overwhelmingly favor the use of in-car cameras. In one survey, 91% of the prosecutors surveyed said they have used in-car camera evidence in court. 33 Cameras also are overwhelmingly supported by the public. In one of the largest studies of the subject, more than 94% of citizens surveyed support the use of such video recording.

In-car (and Body Worn) cameras also provide supervisors with an essential tool to do their jobs. The DOJ COPS report correctly described the issue this way:

The majority of police work is accomplished out of the supervisor’s view and control, and this is more prominent in state police and highway patrol agencies due to the vast geographic area to be patrolled. In many instances, the officer/trooper may only return to the barracks once every 30 days, so an additional level of agency trust is afforded to them. Video evidence captured by in-car cameras provides the supervisors with an additional tool to monitor personnel performance, especially the performance of those officers working in remote areas.

The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing (IACP/COPS Study) at 22 (hereafter IACP/COPS Report).

It is precisely the multi-faceted use and importance of in-car cameras that makes the nonfunctioning of NOPD’s camera for so long such a problem. While we recognize NOPD’s Compliance Bureau’s prompt response to the problem once it had been raised by the Monitoring Team, we express great concern that the issue had not been identified and resolved by NOPD on its own without the Monitoring Team’s intervention. The issue should have been dealt with by District supervisors, and, if they lacked the ability to get it done, the issue should have been escalated within the NOPD to a level where something could be done about it. This did not happen here, which, more than a technology breakdown, highlights a supervision breakdown.

Subsequent to our findings, NOPD’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit did take on this issue as a priority. The NOPD Compliance Bureau now states they monitor and audit the functionality of in-car camera regularly, and the Implementation Unit confirms that all Districts, less one, have a working camera system. The Monitoring Team, obviously, will continue to

32

According to a DOJ study, in 93% of the time a complaint against an officer is filed regarding police

conduct and there is video evidence available, the officer is exonerated. IACP/COPS Report at 28.

33

See IACP/COPS Report for a thorough discussion of the benefits of and perceptions of police use of in-car

cameras.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 66 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
monitor this issue to confirm the statements of the Compliance Bureau and to ensure ongoing compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
XIV. Secondary Employment System (CD 332-374)
The prior Quarterly Report observed the City largely had met the Consent Decree’s requirements regarding creation and implementation of an Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”). One requirement for which the Monitoring Team was unable to confirm compliance in the prior Quarterly Report concerned Consent Decree paragraph 338, which requires the OPSE to “maintain a searchable list of off-duty secondary employment opportunities, which can be access through either the existing NOPD employee web site or another accessible database.” In this Quarter, the OPSE demonstrated to the Monitoring Team that it maintains a searchable list of secondary employment opportunities that can be addressed through the NOPD’s ISElink Employee Self Service Portal, which can be accessed through any internet-connected device using any modern web browser including Windows, MAC OS, IOS, and Android. (Officers who are not registered with the OPSE can access the site but cannot view any jobs.) Accordingly, the City has demonstrated compliance with Consent Decree paragraph 338.
Generally, the OPSE continues to make progress toward managing all police secondary employment in New Orleans. The number of secondary employment jobs the OPSE is managing continues to increase, as does the number of secondary employers using the OPSE and the number of officers registered with and working through the OPSE. The OPSE Director, Col. Salomone, and the OPSE staff continue to meet with both police officers and current and potential secondary employers to explain the program and address misconceptions and misunderstandings about it, which were noted in the last Quarterly Report. Additionally, those discussions also yielded information that the OPSE has been able to use to improve the secondary employment program for both employers and officers, which will be addressed in future reports.
Although acceptance and understanding of the OPSE is growing, there are indications some officers and secondary employers are circumventing the systems. The OPSE, the NOPD, and the Monitoring Team continue to pay close attention to this issue. Officers that are found to be in violation of NOPD secondary employment policies will be subject to discipline.
XV. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication (CD 375-426)
As indicated in the Second Quarterly Report, the Monitoring Team spent significant time this quarter focusing on NOPD’s disciplinary process. We attended hearings, reviewed files, spoke with investigators and hearing officers, and initiated a detailed statistical analysis. The Monitoring Team requested Disciplinary Officer Hearing Memoranda from every disciplinary hearing conducted during the quarter. NOPD provided 134 Disciplinary Hearing Officer Memoranda, representing all such memoranda. The Monitoring Team analyzed all 134 disciplinary hearing memos and is in the process of compiling our observations. Our review,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 67 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
which includes a statistical analysis of the NOPD data, is ongoing and our findings will be presented in a future Report.
XVI. Community Engagement – Police Officer Survey (CD 223-233)
Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” To meet this requirement, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the Department of Justice to develop a three-part survey that would measure public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters, and that would include a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. (CD 231)
The first phase of the survey process was conducted this quarter and included more than 400 police department sworn officers and supervisors. To conduct the survey, members of the Monitoring Team personally administered the survey to police officers in their duty locations. Officers were requested to complete the 95-question survey before leaving the room and the completed survey was handed directly to the Monitoring Team member administering the survey in an envelope. The survey responses then were coded and analyzed by the Monitoring Team. The aggregated findings of the Police Officer Survey are set forth in Appendix 17 to this Report.
The Monitoring Team witnessed a very high response rate among officers surveyed, and also observed seemingly genuine interest among most officer participating in the survey. The average years of service for our sample was 16.36. Officers in the sample had between 1 and 45 years of service with NOPD. A majority of the sample is comprised of police officers (44.1%). 12.5% are detectives, 13.1% are Sergeants, about 6% are a Lieutenant or Captain, and about 3% are Commanders. About one-third of respondents indicated that they live in New Orleans (32.3%), whereas over half do not (51.9%). Most respondents are male (66.4%) (Female = 12.0%). The average age was 43.7 years with a range of 24 to 67 years. About 40% of the sample is classified as a racial minority and 27% of the sample is White. These demographic data, however, are likely not totally accurate because many officers did not provide their demographic information. This is common in self-report surveys of police officers and should not come as a surprise. For instance, over 30% of respondents did not provide the year in which they were hired, 21% did not provide their rank, 22% did not indicate their gender, 41% did not provide the year they were born, 30% did not provide their ethnicity, and 33% did not provide their race.
With that as background, here is a summary of some of the survey findings. While the particular findings will be analyzed in greater detail and in proper context in one or more future reports as appropriate, some of the findings relate to areas of this report and are summarized below. Before considering these findings, however, it is important to keep in mind that our survey measures police officer perceptions – not facts. For example, an officer’s view of the fairness of media coverage may or may not reflect the reality of media coverage. Recent media coverage could affect an officer’s response. Understanding an officer’s perception, however –
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 68 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

just like understanding a citizen’s perception – is an important component of the survey project. Measuring changes in perception over time gives the Monitoring Team an additional data element with which to assess the effectiveness of the various requirements of the Consent Decree. Additionally, identifying perceived problems allows the Monitoring Team to focus its resources to determine whether the perceptions equate with reality.
A. Perception of Bias Within the NOPD
We asked several questions designed to get at officer perception of bias within the police department. (Obviously, the citizen survey will focus on citizen perception of bias as between police and residents.) Four out of ten officers believe supervisors treat officers differently based on gender.34 With respect to race/ethnicity, about 60% of officers feel that supervisors treat officers the same regardless of race or ethnicity, although, obviously, this means 40% may not so believe. As reflected in Figure 15 below, most officers also felt that superiors treat officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation (71.4%). See Appendix 17, Table 2.

100%

Perception of Supervisor Bias

90%

80%

70%

60% Supervisors Treat People The

50%

Same

40%

Supervisors Treat People Differently

30%

20%

10%

0% Gender

Race

Sexual Orientation

Figure 15
While the majority of respondents believed supervisors are not biased, a significant minority believes otherwise, which highlights the importance of continued focus on this area by the NOPD and the Monitoring Team.

34

These findings are particularly interesting considering only twelve percent of the respondents were female.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 69 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. Officer/Citizen Trust/Mistrust
Our findings, depicted in Figure 16, shed significant light on the current level of trust (or mistrust) between NOPD and the citizens of New Orleans. While officers have a strong positive perception that they are treated with respect by other officers (91.3% believe that to be true), fewer (but still a majority) believe citizens treat officers with respect (68.1% believe that to be true). See Appendix 17, Table 4. As a starting point, the following chart shows officer perception of the relationship between citizens and the police:
Officer View of Police/Citizen Relations

35 34

59

183

101

Very Negative Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Positive Very Positive

Figure 16
When asked a different way, our survey revealed that 43% of the officers believe citizens in their communities do not trust the NOPD. And only about 25% of officers surveyed believe community relations have improved over the past three years, whereas about one-third feel they have remained the same. Further, about one-third believe community relations have gotten worse over this time period.
A vast majority of officers agree that residents do not understand the problems officers face (86.9%) and believe the community doesn’t appreciate what NOPD does for them (53.4%).
Importantly, over half of officers said they would not be satisfied with police services if they lived in their district (54.2%). Similarly, more than half of the officers say that police services in New Orleans are either only fair (34.1%) or poor (22.9%).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 70 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Tied to these survey findings likely is the fact that a majority of officers, however, stated they felt the investigation of citizen complaints was unfair (73.3%). Similarly, about 72% of respondents disagree/strongly disagree that PIB investigations are fair. (In contrast, more 70% of the officers surveyed believe their commander administers discipline in a fair manner.) See Appendix 17 for all survey responses.
One of the drivers of this distrust in NOPD’s disciplinary system could be a widely held belief within the NOPD that a majority of respondents believe that most citizen complaints are frivolous (77.1%) and many indicated that a citizen complaint had negatively affected their career (66%) and that officers would be punished for making an honest mistake. In fact, while 74.6% of the officers indicated that they clearly know what type of behavior will result in discipline, 75.2% were afraid that they would be punished for making an honest mistake.
While we are hopeful that implementation of the Consent Decree and the number of eyes watching every step of NOPD’s progress (the Monitoring Team, the IPM, the DOJ, and NOPD itself) will lead to an increase in mutual trust over time, it is clear NOPD has a long way to go to build that trust. We are encouraged, however, by the fact that officers clearly believed that the manner in which they interact with citizens influences the way the community perceives the agency. Indeed, in our survey, 84.6% of the officers agreed with that statement. At the moment, each group blames the other for much of underlying interactions.
C. Conclusion
The Police Officer Survey has provided the monitoring team with essential information regarding the perceptions of those within the NOPD Police Department. But more important than this particular snap shot is our ability to look at changes in those views over time. This is precisely what the “outcome measurements” component of the Consent Decree contemplates, and precisely what we will do over the course of the coming years. Additional findings will be examined in the context of specific discussions included in future quarterly reports.
XVII. Transparency and Oversight (CD 427-443)
The Consent Decree provides NOPD “shall develop and implement a system of formal coordination between a command-level NOPD official and the DA, municipal and state court judges, the Orleans Public Defenders, the FBI, the USAO, and the IPM.” (CD 430) The Consent Decree goes on to provide this “Coordination Group” “shall be convened by the USAO and shall meet monthly to share regular feedback regarding the quality of NOPD arrests and indicia of misconduct; to refer specific allegations of misconduct for investigation; and to receive an update on the status of previous referrals.”
In our First Quarterly Report we noted that, while the Consent Decree requires the Coordination Group be developed and implemented by February 2014, the group already had been meeting for several months at the outset of our monitoring activities. We further noted the NOPD was a regular attendee and participant at the meetings.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 71 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As part of our ongoing monitoring of the structure and effectiveness of the Coordination Group, the Monitoring Team attended the Group’s June 2014 meeting and, again, was quite impressed with the structure and substance of the meeting. The meeting was attended by the First Assistant of the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, a Municipal Court Judge, two deputy New Orleans City Attorneys, two Assistant United States Attorneys the Executive Assistant of the USAO, two FBI agents, and a Deputy Independent Police Monitor. Representing the NOPD was Compliance Bureau Deputy Chief Ginsberg, PIB Commander Tami Brissett, and Superintendent’s Chief of Staff Danny Cazenave. The meeting was chaired by Assistant United States Attorney Steve Parker.
To facilitate the shared goals of sharing feedback regarding the quality of NOPD arrests and the indicia of misconduct; referring specific allegations of misconduct for investigation; and receiving updates on the status of previous referrals, the First Assistant DA came prepared with a detailed agenda. The agenda described actual cases handled by the DA’s office and segregated those cases into meaningful categories, including Individual Misconduct, Judicial Credibility Findings, and Training Opportunities.
 Individual Misconduct. In this portion of the meeting, the DA made observations about specific individual misconduct on NOPD personnel, and identified training issues for the group’s consideration.
 Judicial Credibility Findings. In this portion of the discussion, the DA raised the issue of court findings of officer credibility and, among other things, discussed the problems caused by judicial findings made without a stated rationale and/or without identifying the specific supporting evidence.
 Training Issues. In this portion of the discussion, the DA raised and the group discussed areas for improved training based upon lessons learned from actual cases. Topics included report writing, investigation techniques, police cooperation with probation and parole officers, cooperation with the DA’s office, search and seizure, and policies regarding the tagging of evidence.
Each topic was discussed in detail with most members of the group contributing. The shared commitment to improve the policing and criminal justice system was obvious from every attendee.
In our view, the Coordination Group is serving its intended function and is contributing to positive change within the NOPD. We find NOPD continues to demonstrate compliance with this area of the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 72 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVIII. Agreement Implementation and Enforcement (CD 444-492)

A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)

The Consent Decree provides that the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team and IPM communicated frequently during this quarter and coordinated their efforts to the extent practicable. Additionally, the Monitoring Team and the IPM began working together on a joint analysis of racial profiling complaints filed with PIB. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it continues to receive from IPM and the Office of the Inspector General.

B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)

Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.” Among other things, the Consent Decree Implementation Unit is intended to



Coordinate the City and NOPD’s compliance and implementation activities;



Facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City and

NOPD personnel to the Monitoring Team and DOJ, as needed;



Ensure that all data, documents, and records are maintained as provided in this

Agreement; and



Assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to NOPD

personnel, as directed by the Superintendent or his designee.

As noted in the Monitoring Team’s Second Quarterly Report, “a fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.”

Last quarter, the Monitoring Team found that NOPD was not in compliance with this requirement. This quarter, we are pleased to report that things have changed.

Following the creation of the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the City funded, created, and advertised for a series of Compliance Manager positions in March and April 2014. All five positions were filled by June 2014. As a result, the Compliance Bureau and Consent Decree Implementation Unit now is fully staffed. Each compliance manager reports directly to the

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 73 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
leader of the Compliance Bureau, Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg. The Compliance Managers and Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg are civilian personnel.
While the Monitoring Team has had little more than one month to work closely with the newly appointed Implementation Unit, we so far have been impressed by the team’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process. Just as we previously believed the absence of a qualified team was an indicia of a lack of commitment, we find the current team equally to be an indicia of a genuine commitment. The Monitoring Team commends the Department and particularly Deputy Chief Ginsberg for the selection of a quality and committed team, and looks forward to working closely with the NOPD Implementation Unit over the coming months and years to ensure that every element of the Consent Decree is carried out in a timely and effective manner.
C. City’s Semi-Annual Report (CD 469)
The Consent Decree required NOPD to prepare and submit a “Status Report” to the Monitoring Team and DOJ by February 5, 2014. (CD 469) On June 27, 2014, the Court extended the deadline for the submission of the Status Report to July 2, 2014. The City filed its Report on July 2, 2014. The Report is titled the “Biannual Report of the New Orleans Police Department,” and covers the period August 9, 2013 to July 2, 2014.
The purpose of the City’s Semi-Annual Status Report is to “delineate the steps taken by NOPD during the reporting period to implement [the Consent Decree]; the City’s assessment of the status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to any concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous quarterly report.” The City’s Status Report achieved this purpose.
In its introduction, the City recognizes the breadth and scope of the Consent Decree, characterizing it as an “extensive blueprint for positive change.” Status Report at 3. Recognizing it may take the City years to accomplish all the reforms identified in the Consent Decree, the City states it has made progress. The Monitoring Team agrees.
The areas in which the City cites its progress include its creation of a Compliance Bureau and a five person Implementation Unit. The City correctly notes the Implementation Unit now is fully staffed, which it was not at the time of our Second Quarterly Report. According to the City, its Consent Decree Implementation Unit “timely delivery of projects, implementation of Consent Decree requirements, and determination of compliance with NOPD policy as well as verification of Consent Decree compliance through the federal Monitor.”
D. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD did cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting quarter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 74 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. What Are We Doing Next Quarter?
Our primary focus for the fourth quarter remains NOPD’s policies. As we have said in each prior report, the absence of approved policies impacts most every other element of the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is hopeful, with the staffing of its Consent Decree Implementation Unit, NOPD may have turned the corner with respect to developing understandable, effective, and compliant policies. The drafting and revision process certainly has improved over the course of the last quarter, and we are hopeful this translates into quality policies.
Even without a full complement of approved policies, the Monitoring Team has been continuously monitoring NOPD’s training. We will continue such observations and evaluations throughout the fourth quarter, including giving particular attention to NOPD’s new detective training program. We also will be reviewing and evaluating NOPD’s instructional lesson plans. As noted in this report, the Monitoring Team has come across very few compliant lesson plans, but we appreciate the Consent Decree Implementation Unit has made the development of such plans a priority this quarter. It likewise is a priority of the Monitoring Team.
Consistent with our approach this quarter to conduct data-driven assessments of certain key Consent Decree areas (e.g., in-car cameras, Use of Force reports, etc.), our fourth quarter efforts likewise will involve several data driven monitoring exercises. One such project, which is being undertaken in conjunction with the Independent Police Monitor, involves a close review of PIB racial profiling complaints. Among other things, the Monitoring Team will analyze whether such complaints are being accurately coded and properly investigated by PIB.
With the broad implementation of body worn cameras (BWC) throughout the uniformed members of the NOPD, the Monitoring Team now has access to a wealth of real-time evidence of police/citizen encounters. This quarter, the Monitoring Team will be reviewing BWC video footage to assess compliance with NOPD recording policy, as well as the accuracy of NOPD Field Interview Cards, arrest reports, and/or police activity logs. We are particularly interested in ensuring NOPD officers are using their cameras properly, are recording the activities that are required to be recorded by NOPD policy and by the Consent Decree, and are using the recordings for their intended purposes. The Monitoring Team also will begin incorporating BWC footage into its ongoing assessments of a number of other Consent Decree provisions, including Supervision, Use of Force, Bias Free Policing, and more.
A significant task this quarter is the initiation of the “outcome assessments” outlined in the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to perform annual assessments “to measure whether implementation of [the Consent Decree] is resulting in constitutional policing. (CD 448) These assessments are highly data-driven and, as its name suggests, highly outcome focused. They include things like assessing and comparing over time canine bite ratios (CD 448(a)(2)), stops and searches (CD 448(b)), clearance rates in domestic violence cases (CD 448(a)(5)), and much more. The Monitoring Team will be working closely
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 75 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
with the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit, the New Orleans Inspector General, and the Independent Police Monitor to secure the data it needs to undertake these measurements.
Finally, our fourth quarter will continue to involve the close monitoring of NOPD’s ongoing practices in a number of Consent Decree areas, including disciplinary hearings, bias free policing, Use of Force events, misconduct investigations, secondary employment, and more. Such activities will remain a core component of our monitoring activities in every reporting quarter.
XX. Conclusion
The City recognized in its recent “Biannual Report” it may take years to accomplish all the reforms identified in the Consent Decree. That is to be expected. Meaningful and lasting change does not come about overnight; it comes about over time. But that does not mean the citizens of New Orleans have to wait years to see change. Some changes already are upon us. The NOPD’s broad implementation of body worn cameras, the work being done by a committed Force Investigation Team, the creation of the Independent Police Monitor, the creation of the Office of Secondary Employment, and the appointment of a dedicated, skilled, and committed NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit all are extremely positive developments.
As we said in our Second Quarterly Report, the Monitoring Team believes the New Orleans Police Department is committed to the promises it made to the citizens of New Orleans (and its officers) in the Consent Decree. We remain optimistic this commitment ultimately will result in a rejuvenated police department that, to borrow a phrase from the Department of Justice, prevents crime more effectively, serves all parts of the New Orleans’ community more fairly, respects the rights of all New Orleans’ residents, and better prepares and protects officers. See DOJ Findings Letter at 115. The positive developments noted throughout this report and our prior reports fuel our optimism.
Our optimism, however, is not without reservation. The lack of written instructional lesson plans in the Police Academy, the problems submitting compliant policies to the Monitoring Team, the failure to recognize and solve a wide-spread problem with nonfunctioning in-car cameras, the absence of thorough investigations into uses of force and the incompleteness of the Use of Force Report files, and the lack of effective record keeping in so many Districts serve to remind us of how much work there is still to do. But these things do not crush our optimism; they do temper it, however. While some officers and managers certainly long for “the good old days,” a growing number of NOPD personnel are embracing change and the benefits that such change will bring to all.
The Monitoring Team recently made an unannounced visit to the NOPD Homicide Division. We walked into the office of one sergeant and asked to see how he logs custodial interrogation video recordings. With deserved pride, he showed us a database he had created to log his entire team’s interrogations, the recordings of those interrogations, and the disposition of the investigation. We asked him what prompted him to create such a system. (We had not seen
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 76 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com a similarly effective effort in the various Districts we visited.) He pulled out a copy of the Consent Decree from his desk in which he had circled those paragraphs that related to his team. “Because we have to comply with the Consent Decree,” he answered.
Change is coming. Some will resist it, but it is coming regardless. Those who embrace it, like the Homicide sergeant mentioned above and like countless others across the City, will be able to tell their kids and their grandkids, they played a role in protecting the constitutional rights of 370,000 people. And at the end of the day, that is what we all are doing here. It’s not about checking off boxes on a Consent Decree. It’s about the United States Constitution, and its promise of fairness, equality, and due process to all people.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 77 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
APPENDIXES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 78 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 1 Degree of Subject Resistance and Officer Force on the Force Factor

Degree Resistance 1 Resistance 2
Resistance 3
Resistance 4 Resistance 5
Resistance 6 Resistance 7

Description No resistance. The Subject is offering no resistance or threat. Verbal resistance to complying with lawful orders. Subject may challenge authority or standing and may present as “dead weight.”

Degree Force 1
Force 2

Use of posture and verbal threats of physical violence – as threat or intimidation. Physical non-compliance including refusal to give up hands for cuffing and attempts to flee. Spitting at an officer. Active physical resistance to compliance. Subject may attempt to strike officers, kick and struggle free from holds and compliance positions. Use of non-lethal weapons to injure or otherwise actively assault officers. Drug paraphernalia, beverage containers and rocks may be employed as cutting and impact weapons.

Force 3 Force 4 Force 5

Use of lethal force by whatever means other than firearms, including knives and motor vehicles. Use of lethal force by firearms

Force 6
Force 7 Force 8

Force 9

Description Officer presence in uniform or marked police vehicle.
Issuance of lawful orders and light physical contact to include guiding, leading and/or handcuffing. No intentional infliction of pain for the purpose of compliance. Physical control tactics such as pain compliance holds, joint manipulation, open handed strikes and forcible handcuffing.
Advanced physical control tactics including closed fisted strikes, knee and elbow strikes to the body and the extremities, and a forcible takedown. Intermediate weapon use, deployment of electronic control weapons and impact weapons for pain compliance and strikes to the body and extremities. Canines and use of Chemicals (OC) when suspect is apprehended. Use of lethal force including carotid artery holds, head strikes and other uses of deadly force other than a firearm. Intentional discharge of firearms. Chemical agents for the purpose of crowd dispersal or distraction. Firearm pointed at a suspect.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 79 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 2 Descriptive Statistics for Use of Force Information.

Variable

N

Date

January

26

February

27

March

25

April

31

May

30

June

6

Unit Involved 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th K-9, Specialty, Multiple, Other

11 9 11 11 16 7 11 34
35

How the Encounter was Initiated

Traffic Offense

19

Fine or Civil Offense

Minor Offense, Minor

51

Potential Danger

Moderate Offense, Warrant

57

Service, Moderate Potential

Danger

Major Offense, Hi-Risk Warrant 13 Service, Major Potential Danger

Missing Information

5

Frequency (%)
17.9 18.6 17.2 21.4 20.7 4.1
7.6 6.2 7.6 7.6 11.0 4.8 7.6 23.4 24.1
13.1
35.1
39.4
8.9
3.5

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 80 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 3 Descriptive Statistics for Officer-Based Information.

Variable

N

Paid Detail

Yes

14

No

131

Extent of Officer Injuries

None

118

Minor

12

Moderate

10

Major

0

Missing Information

5

Number of Officers at the Scene

One

36

Two

63

Three

24

Four

9

Five

6

Six

7

Force Reports by All Involved Officers

Yes

94

No

46

Missing Information

5

Sergeant at the Scene

Yes

81

No

53

Not Applicable

3

Unknown

8

Frequency (%)
9.7 90.3
81.4 8.2 6.9 0.0 3.5
24.8 43.4 16.6 6.2 4.1 4.8
64.8 31.7 3.5
55.8 36.5 2.1 5.6

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 81 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 4 Descriptive Statistics for Subject- Based Information.

Variable

N

Race of the Primary Subject

Non-White

114

White

26

Missing Information

5

Sex of the Primary Subject

Male

116

Female

24

Missing Information

5

Primary Subject Interviewed

Unknown

4

Yes

63

No

64

Refused

9

Missing Information

5

Primary Subject Arrested

Yes

118

No

27

Missing Information

5

Subject Photograph Taken

Not Applicable

13

Yes

12

No

105

Unknown

10

Missing Information

5

Frequency (%)
78.6 17.9 3.5
80.0 16.5 3.5
2.7 43.4 44.2 6.2 3.5
81.4 15.1 3.5
8.9 8.2 72.5 6.9 3.5

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 82 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 5 Descriptive Statistics for Conclusion of the Force Incident.

Variable

N

Was the Force Justified by a Sergeant?

Yes

106

No

2

Unknown

31

Missing Information

6

Frequency (%)
73.1 1.3 21.5 4.1

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 83 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 6 Descriptive Statistics for “Other” Information.

Variable

N

Was the Event Recorded?

Yes

49

No

86

Unknown

5

Missing Information

5

Was the Recording Reviewed?

Not Applicable

84

Yes

25

No

26

Unknown

5

Missing Information

5

Was the non-NOPD witness identified?

Yes

59

No

66

Unknown

15

Missing Information

5

Was the Witness Interviewed?

Not Applicable

75

Yes

23

No

33

Unknown

9

Missing Information

5

Was the Interview Recorded?

Not Applicable

106

Yes

5

No

22

Unknown

6

Missing Information

6

Frequency (%)
33.8 59.6 3.5 3.5
57.9 17.2 17.9 3.5 3.5
40.6 45.5 10.4 3.5
51.7 15.8 22.8 6.2 3.5
73.1 3.5 15.2 4.1 4.1

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 84 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 7 Cross Tabulation of Force Factor Degree and the Presence of a Supervisor at the Scene

Supervisor at the Scene

Force Degree

Yes

No

Unknown

or n/a

Total

One

3

1

0

4

Two

23

11

0

34

Three

19

20

2

41

Four 7

9

1

17

Five

15

6

2

23

Six

10

6

1

17

Seven

4

0

0

4

Total

81

53

6

140

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 85 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 8 Cross Tabulation of the Force Factor Degree and the Interview of a Primary Subject.

Interview of the Primary Subject

Force Degree

Yes

No

Unknown Refusal

Total

One Two Three Four 7 Five Six Seven Total

2

2

0

0

4

17

14

0

3

34

16

20

2

3

41

10

0

0

17

15

5

0

3

23

4

13

0

0

17

2

0

2

0

4

63

64

4

9

140

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 86 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 9 Cross Tabulation of the Force Factor Degree and whether or not the Primary Subject was
Photographed at the Scene.

Force Degree
One Two Three Four 0 Five Six Seven Total

Photograph of the Primary Subject

Yes

No

Unknown

or n/a

Total

1

2

1

4

9

13

12

34

0

38

3

41

17

0

17

2

20

1

23

0

15

2

17

0

0

4

4

12

105

23

140

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 87 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 10 Cross Tabulation of the NOPD Force Level and the Presence of a Supervisor at the Scene

Force Level
Level One Level Two Level Three Level Four Total

Supervisor at the Scene

Yes

No

Unknown

or n/a

Total

34

27

3

64

17

16

1

34

10

8

1

19

13

2

1

16

74

53

6

133

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 88 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 11 Cross Tabulation of the Consent Decree Force Level and the Interview of a Primary Subject.

Force Level
Level One Level Two Level Three Level Four Total

Interview of the Primary Subject

Yes

No

Unknown Refusal

Total

25

36

0

3

64

15

15

1

3

34

11

6

1

1

19

9

5

2

0

16

60

62

4

7

133

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 89 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 12 Cross Tabulation of Consent Decree Force Level and whether or not the Primary Subject was
Photographed at the Scene.

Force Level
Level One Level Two Level Three Level Four Total

Photograph of the Primary Subject

Yes

No

Unknown

or n/a

Total

5

55

4

64

2

27

5

34

2

14

3

19

1

9

6

16

10

105

18

133

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 90 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 13 Additional Statistical Information Regarding The “Force Factor” In order to make some of our observations regarding Use of Force issues, we organized the available Use of Force data into two dichotomous categories: “Lesser Uses of Force,” which encompassed Level 1 and Level 2 uses of force, and “Greater Uses of Force,” which encompassed Level 3 and Level 4 uses of force. We then used these data to measure the impact of a multitude of variables (e.g., race of the subject, presence of multiple officers on the scene, etc.) on the level of force used. The Monitoring Team performed this analysis using Consent Decree Force Levels as the measure of force and using our own “Force Factor” as the measure of force. No one method of analysis is “correct.” Accordingly, for those with a statistics bent, the following tables provide additional details regarding our four analyses in order to help paint a broader picture about what influences higher and lower use of force levels.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 91 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Binary Logistic Regression on the Force Level as a Binary Variable

Variable

b

SE

Exp(B)

Paid

Detail

Officer

Injury

Sgt.

At Scene

Race

Gender

-1.794

Encounter

Initiation

NOPD

Susp. Resist.

Event

Recorded

Unit

Total

Officers .479

Sup.

Justification

-1.109 .040 -.026 -.269
* -.067 .128 -.896* .063
** .239

.761

.403

1.04

.386

.645

.810

.267

.090

.420

.083

.176 1.61

.270

1.27

.330 1
.975 .975
.764 .166 .936 .451
1.270 5 0

Constant Nagelkerke R2 Cox and Snell R2 † p < .10. * p < .05.

.366 .225 .153
** p < .01. *** p < .001

This table presents an initial look into the use of force based on the Consent Decree’s use of force levels.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 92 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Binary Logistic Regression on the Force Factor as a Binary Variable

Variable

b

SE

Exp(B)

Paid

Detail

-.560

Officer

Injury

.051

Sgt.

At Scene

-.829*

Race

-.492

Gender

-.771

Encounter

Initiation -.085

FF

Susp. Resist. -.646*

**

Event

Recorded 1.01

2*

Unit

-.058

Total

Officers

-.034

Sup.

Justification

-.186

.761

.373

1.05

.402

.563

.622

.274

.195

1.90

.443

2.75

.489

.161

.274

.571 2
.436 .611
.463 .919
7 2 .943 .966 .830

Constant Nagelkerke R2 Cox and Snell R2 † p < .10. * p < .05.

.150 .170 .237
** p < .01. *** p < .001

This table presents the same equation as the prior table, with one minor change: The Monitoring Team’s “Force Factor” is used as the dependent variable and subject resistance is measured according the Force Factor instead of the Consent Decree force levels. The Force Factor, much like in the previous table, has been transformed into a binary variable that classifies force as “lesser” (levels 1 through 4) or “greater” (levels 5 through 7). Levels 8 and 9 were examined independently to determine whether or not they should be codified as “lesser” or “greater.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 93 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 14 Consent Decree Use of Force Levels Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury. Level 2 uses of force include use of an ECW (including where an ECW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns). Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal. Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by [the Consent Decree], and shall be investigated by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 94 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 15 Police FIC Survey Responses

Survey Question

Yes

No

Have you ever read the NOPD FIC Policy?

76%

24%

Do you know under what circumstances an FIC should

88%

12%

be completed?

Do you complete an EPR each time you complete an

6%

94%

FIC?

Would you be disciplined at NOPD for not completing

70%

30%

an FIC in an appropriate manner?

Have you heard of any officer being disciplined at NOPD for not completing an FIC in an appropriate manner?

48%

52%

Do you think that FICs are reviewed by supervisors in

38%

62%

order to determine their accuracy?

Do you think that FICs serve an important role?

76%

24%

Do you think NOPD should educate officers on the

96%

4%

importance of completing an FIC accurately?

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 95 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 16 FIC Survey Data

OCDM FIC Tracking Number
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. X 29.

Arrest Noted on FIC and NO EPR Available
X

Arrest Noted on FIC and EPR Available
X

No Arrest Noted on FIC and no EPR Available
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X

FIC Showed Arrest on Narrative, but FIC Arrest Checkbox was not Marked and EPR was not Available
X
X
X
X

X

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 96 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

OCDM FIC Tracking Number
30. X 31. 32. X 33. 34. X 35. 36. X 37. 38. X 39. 40. X 41. 42. X 43. 44. X 45. 46. X 47. 48. X 49. 50. X 51. 52. X 53. 54. X 55. 56. X 57. 58. X 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Arrest Noted on FIC and NO EPR Available

Arrest Noted on FIC and EPR Available

No Arrest Noted on FIC and no EPR Available

FIC Showed Arrest on Narrative, but FIC Arrest Checkbox was not Marked and EPR was not Available

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 97 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

OCDM FIC Tracking Number
65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

Arrest Noted on FIC and NO EPR Available

Arrest Noted on FIC and EPR Available
X

No Arrest Noted on FIC and no EPR Available

FIC Showed Arrest on Narrative, but FIC Arrest Checkbox was not Marked and EPR was not Available

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 98 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

OCDM FIC Tracking Number
100. 101.

Arrest Noted on FIC and NO EPR Available

Arrest Noted on FIC and EPR Available

No Arrest Noted on FIC and no EPR Available
X X

FIC Showed Arrest on Narrative, but FIC Arrest Checkbox was not Marked and EPR was not Available

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 99 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 17 Police Survey Responses
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 100 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Distribution of Responses for Section 1: “Police Work and Your Working Environment”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
1. Generally, civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M = 2.75)

33 (7.3)

89 (19.8)

260 (57.9)

46 (10.2)

2. Generally, in my District, my fellow officers treat me with respect. (M = 3.36)

6 (1.3)

13 (2.9)

231 (51.4)

179 (39.9)

3. Generally, in my District, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M = 3.24)

14 (3.1)

34 (7.6)

215 (47.9)

164 (36.5)

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M = 2.50)

63 (14.0)

134 (29.8)

194 (43.2)

43 (9.6)

5. I receive training from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 2.49)

52 (11.6)

148 (33.0)

205 (45.7)

31 (6.9)

6. I receive quality equipment from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 1.87)

162 (36.1) Very bad (1)

178 (39.6) Somewhat bad (2)

86 (19.2) Somewhat good (3)

9 (2.0) Very good (4)

8. Overall, how would you rate the relationships among the racial and ethnic groups in NOPD? (M = 2.86)

31 (6.9)

82 (18.3)

242 (53.9)

78 (17.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M). Survey question #7 is not included in this table because it featured different response categories.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 101 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Distribution of Responses for Section 2: “Managers and Supervisors”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

9. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of gender. (M = 2.79)

25 (5.6)

103 (22.9)

244 (54.3)

10. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of gender. (M = 2.62)

42 (9.4)

134 (29.8)

203 (45.2)

11. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.79)

24 (5.3)

98 (21.8)

258 (57.5)

12. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.68)

37 (8.2)

125 (27.8)

211 (47.0)

13. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation. (M = 2.87)

21 (4.7)

81 (18.0)

266 (59.2)

14. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation.(M = 2.85)

22 (4.9)

90 (20.0)

253 (56.3)

15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work.(M = 2.97)

33 (7.3)

69 (15.4)

210 (46.8)

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M = 3.24)

11 (2.4)

44 (9.8)

206 (45.9)

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of working. (M = 2.87)

44 (9.8)

64 (14.3)

207 (46.1)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
63 (14.0) 54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 61 (13.6) 67 (14.9) 68 (15.1) 121 (26.9) 172 (38.3) 99 (22.0)

Page 102 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

18. My district/division commander has improved relations with the community in which I work. (M = 2.91)

25 (5.6)

61 (13.6)

223 (49.7)

75 (16.7)

19. My district/division commander is a good leader. (M = 3.04)

33 (7.3)

43 (9.6)

211 (47.0)

124 (27.6)

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. (M = 1.73)

225 (50.1)

110 (24.5)

61 (13.6)

25 (5.6)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 103 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Distribution of Responses for Section 3: “Personnel and Management Systems”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
21. The Department today hires qualified people. (M = 2.35)

75 (16.7)

140 (31.2)

189 (42.1)

22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M = 2.25)

95 (21.2)

141 (31.4)

175 (39.0)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M = 1.85)

183 (40.8)

146 (32.5)

77 (17.1)

24. The investigations now conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair. (M = 1.86)

170 (37.9)

154 (34.3)

84 (18.7)

25. The way my Commander administers discipline is fair. (M = 2.88)

29 (6.5)

58 (12.9)

250 (55.7)

26. I understand clearly what type of behavior will result in discipline. (M = 3.06)

30 (6.7)

63 (14.0)

188 (41.9)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake. (M = 3.20)

24 (5.3)

69 (15.4)

134 (29.8)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M = 3.12)

11 (2.4)

65 (14.5)

207 (46.1)

29. My career has been negatively affected by civilian complaints. (M = 2.19)

104 (23.2)

192 (42.8)

75 (16.7)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
17 (3.8) 14 (3.1) 20 (4.5) 13 (2.9) 66 (14.7) 147 (32.7) 204 (45.4) 139 (31.0) 55 (12.2)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 104 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

30. The complaint system makes the Department more accountable to the public. (M = 2.41)

72 (16.0)

144 (32.1)

165 (36.7)

40 (8.9)

31. The Early Warning Program (PPEP) helps the Department identify risky behavior among officers. (M = 2.29)

89 (19.8)

152 (33.9)

154 (34.3)

30 (6.7)

32. The Early Warning Program (PPEP) helps the Department prevent police misconduct. (M = 2.13)

106 (23.6)

173 (38.5)

127 (28.3)

16 (3.6).

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 105 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Distribution of Responses for Section 4: “Community Policing and Police/Community Relations”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

33. Officers in my district are respected by residents in the community. (M = 2.61)

31 (6.9)

114 (25.4)

243 (54.1)

34. Generally, NOPD receives more support from the community than a year ago. (M = 2.23)

70 (15.6)

189 (42.1)

122 (27.2)

35. The manner in which I interact with civilians influences the way the community perceives NOPD. (M = 3.38)

5 (1.1)

32 (7.1)

180 (40.1)

36. Law enforcement strategies in my district negatively affect community relations. ( M = 2.22)
37. Police Community Coordinating (CoCo) Sergeants do valuable work for the Department. (M = 2.56)

40 (8.9) 61 (13.6)

242 (53.9) 95 (21.2)

86 (19.2) 177 (39.4)

38. Quality of Life Officers do valuable work for the Department. (M = 2.76)

45 (10.0)

72 (16.0)

225 (50.1)

39. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M = 2.61)

48 (10.7)

109 (24.3)

171 (38.1)

40. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M = 2.82)

41 (9.1)

89 (19.8)

188 (41.9)

42. The NOPD today is a better organization than it was three years ago. (M = 1.74)

199 (44.3)

139 (31.0)

50 (11.1)

47. NOPD today brings offenders to justice while

14 (3.1)

43 (9.6)

respecting their rights and complying with the law.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

250 (55.7)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
17 (3.8) 20 (4.5) 200 (44.5)
19 (4.2) 49 (10.9) 64 (14.3) 56 (12.5) 81 (18.0) 22 (4.9) 99 (22.0)

Page 106 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

(M = 3.07)

51. Residents in the community I work in trust the NOPD. (M = 2.45)

43 (9.6)

148 (33.0)

186 (41.4)

16 (3.6)

52. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services. (M = 2.17)

104 (23.2)

139 (31.0)

131 (29.2)

21 (4.7)

43. The officers in my district/division treat all individuals (regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation) equally. (M = 3.12)

Almost never (1) 14 (3.1)

Only some of time (2) 66 (14.7)

Most of the time (3) 187 (41.6)

Always (4) 142 (31.6)

44. The officers in my district/division treat all individuals (regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation) fairly. (M = 3.15)

15 (3.3)

51 (11.4)

202 (45.0)

142 (31.6)

41. Overall, the services of the police in New Orleans are (M = 2.20)

Poor (1) 103 (22.9)

Fair (2) 153 (34.1)

Good (3) 142 (31.6)

Excellent (4) 22 (4.9)

48. Overall, how would you say that racial and ethnic groups in New Orleans are getting along with one other these days? (M = 2.67)

Very badly (1) 38 (8.5)

Somewhat badly (2) 88 (19.6)

Somewhat well (3) 255 (56.8)

Very well (4) 25 (5.6)

No
49. Is there a group that is treated unfairly by officers in NOPD?

105 (23.4)

Yes 295 (65.7)

Note: Questions are not in the same order as the survey to allow for groupings of response categories. Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 107 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 108 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Distribution of Responses for Section 5: “Expectations about the Police Role”

Response categories:

Not Important At All (1)
N (%)

Not Important (2)
N (%)

Not So Important (3)
N (%)

Important (4) N (%)

Very Important (5)
N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

53. Testifying in court. (M = 4.61)

3 (0.7)

3 (0.7)

54. Handling drunk driving offenders. (M = 4.45)

3 (0.7)

4 (0.9)

55. Obtaining statements from witnesses. (M = 4.67)

1 (0.2)

0

56. Making arrests. (M = 4.10)

6 (1.3)

7 (1.6)

57. Dealing with domestic disputes. (M = 4.29)

3 (0.7)

5 (1.1)

58. Working with community to make neighborhoods safer. (M = 4.57)

1 (0.2)

1 (0.2)

59. Responding to calls for service. (M = 4.57)

3 (0.7)

2 (0.4)

60. Talking to civilians to help identify problems. (M = 4.50)

0

3 (0.7)

61. Dealing with street crime. (M = 4.64)

0

0

62. Completing criminal offense reports. (M = 4.47)

0

3 (0.7)

63. Conducting foot patrol. (M = 3.55)

18 (4.0)

38 (8.5)

64. Providing crime prevention education to the public.(M = 4.18)

3 (0.7)

11 (2.4)

65. Working with juveniles. (M = 4.24)

5 (1.1)

6 (1.3)

66. Conducting drug raids. (M = 4.16)

5 (1.1)

9 (2.0)

67. Maintaining crowd control. (M = 4.27)

3 (0.7)

5 (1.1)

68. Stopping and searching suspects. (M = 3.99)

7 (1.6)

11 (2.4)

69. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches. (M = 4.61)

1 (0.2)

3 (0.7)

70. Patrolling the streets. (M = 4.57)

2 (0.4)

2 (0.4)

71. General patrol duties. (M = 4.47)

3 (0.7)

2 (0.4)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

10 (2.2) 26 (5.8) 7 (1.6) 74 (16.5) 46 (10.2) 14 (3.1) 10 (2.2) 20 (4.5) 8 (1.8) 23 (5.1) 140 (31.2) 51 (11.4) 54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 45 (10.0) 76 (16.9) 14 (3.1) 10 (2.2) 14 (3.1)

117 (26.1) 163 (36.3) 123 (27.4) 194 (43.2) 187 (41.6) 151 (33.6) 145 (32.3) 166 (37.0) 136 (30.3) 172 (38.3) 152 (33.9) 202 (45.0) 181 (40.3) 197 (43.9) 199 (44.3) 215 (47.9) 127 (28.3) 148 (33.0) 181 (40.3)

274 (61.0) 235 (52.3) 299 (66.6) 147 (32.7) 187 (41.6) 261 (58.1) 268 (59.7) 240 (53.5) 284 (63.3) 232 (51.7) 79 (17.6) 161 (35.9) 182 (40.5) 159 (35.4) 178 (39.6) 115 (25.6) 281 (62.6) 265 (59.0) 227 (50.6)

Page 109 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

72. General traffic duties. (M = 3.92)

4 (0.9)

12 (2.7)

81 (18.0)

247 (55.0)

82 (18.3)

73. Controlling traffic. (M = 3.85)

5 (1.1)

15 (3.3)

96 (21.4)

231 (51.4)

78 (17.4)

74. Issuing traffic tickets. (M = 3.48)

11 (2.4)

32 (7.1)

172 (38.3)

160 (35.6)

49 (10.9)

75. Handling neighborhood disputes. (M = 4.16) 76. Controlling the crowds at public events. (M = 4.36)

4 (0.9) 6 (1.3)

5 (1.1) 7 (1.6)

40 (8.9) 30 (6.7)

247 (55.0) 167 (37.2)

128 (28.5) 217 (48.3)

77. Dealing with noisy parties. (M = 3.34)

17 (3.8)

34 (7.6)

194 (43.2)

143 (31.8)

35 (7.8)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 110 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Distribution of Responses for Section 6: “General Questions about the Public and the Department”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Not Sure (3) N (%)

Agree (4) N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

78. Many people in society will harm you if you give them the opportunity. (M = 3.22)
79. Most people are honest. (M = 3.18)
80. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer who needs assistance. (M = 3.11)
81. In general, you should be suspicious of people. (M = 3.19)
82. The community shows a lot of respect for the police. (M = 2.68)
83. Residents do not understand the problems that we face as police officers. (M = 4.36)
84. Many residents try to make us look bad. (M = 3.45)
85. Most civilians have confidence in the police. (M = 3.06)
86. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything. (M = 2.66)
87. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them. (M = 3.48)
88. Police officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much. (M = 3.70)
89. Rarely do officers get rewarded for doing a good job.(M = 4.25)
90. Landing a good assignment is based on whom you know. (M = 3.96)

16 (3.6)
19 (4.2) 36 (8.0)
7 (1.6) 66 (14.7) 7 (1.6)
8 (1.8) 24 (5.3) 36 (8.0)
14 (3.1)
10 (2.2)
7 (1.6) 8 (1.8)

130 (29.0)
102 (22.7) 76 (16.9)
139 (31.0) 143 (31.8) 14 (3.1)
96 (21.4) 106 (23.6) 215 (47.9)
100 (22.3)
81 (18.0)
30 (6.7) 56 (12.5)

87 (19.4)
110 (24.5) 147 (32.7)
78 (17.4) 94 (20.9) 23 (5.1)
94 (20.9) 134 (29.8) 59 (13.1)
78 (17.4)
66 (14.7)
21 (4.7) 54 (12.0)

136 (30.3)
183 (40.8) 154 (34.3)
176 (39.2) 123 (27.4) 161 (35.9)
161 (35.9) 152 (33.9) 93 (20.7)
143 (31.8)
143 (31.8)
164 (36.5) 139 (31.0)

Strongly Agree (5)
N (%)
61 (13.6)
18 (4.0) 21 (4.7)
29 (6.5) 7 (1.6) 229 (51.0)
72 (16.0) 15 (3.3) 24 (5.3)
97 (21.6)
128 (28.5)
209 (46.5) 171 (38.1)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 111 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

91. If you make a mistake, the department will give you a second chance. (M = 2.33)
92. If you work hard, you can get ahead in NOPD. (M = 2.70)
93. Police officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M = 3.96)
94. In general, the news media treat the police fairly. (M = 1.74)
95. The media are interested in stories about the police only when a police officer gets in trouble. (M = 4.49)

98 (21.8)
85 (18.9) 9 (2.0)
226 (50.3) 11 (2.4)

159 (35.4)
127 (28.3) 36 (8.0)
136 (30.3) 13 (2.9)

109 (24.3)
78 (17.4) 87 (19.4)
32 (7.1) 18 (4.0)

54 (12.0)
111 (24.7) 127 (28.3)
25 (5.6) 100 (22.3)

8 (1.8)
28 (6.2) 170 (37.9)
11 (2.4) 286 (63.7)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 112 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Respondent Characteristics

N

Missing Average or percent Minimum Maximum

Years of service

311

138

16.36

1

45

Rank: Police officer Detective Sergeant Lt. or Capt. Commander

355

94

198

--

56

--

59

--

28

--

14

--

-44.1% 12.5% 13.1% 6.2% 3.1%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Reside in New Orleans: Yes No

378

71

145

--

233

--

-32.3% 51.9%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Sex: Female Male

352

97

54

--

298

--

-12.0% 66.4%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Age

266

183

43.7

24

67

Hispanic: Yes No

313

136

15

--

298

--

-3.3% 66.4%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Racial minority: Yes No

300

149

180

--

120

--

-40.1% 26.7%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Racial group breakdown:

300

149

White

120

--

African American

14

9

--

Asian

5

--

Vietnamese

3

--

Latino

4

--

Other

19

--

-26.7% 33.2% 1.1% 0.7% 0.9% 4.2%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 113 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 18 Summary of Consent Decree Elements
The Consent Decree is comprehensive in nature and details specific areas for corrective action including: use of force; stops searches, seizures and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; bias-free policing; policing free of gender bias; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct-complaint intake, investigation and adjudication.
The Consent Decree represents a proactive and robust mandate for reform of the policies, training, and practices of the NOPD with specific agreed-upon corrective actions and timeframes for implementation. What follows is a summary of NOPD’s core obligations under the Consent Decree.
Policies and Training
NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department’s core values and priorities, and provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all NOPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures.
Use of Force
NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States and that any unreasonable Use of Force events are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to affect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment.
Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.
Stops, Searches, and Arrests
NOPD agrees to ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to ensure that investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 114 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
an effective overall crime prevention strategy; are consistent with community priorities for enforcement; and are carried out with fairness and respect.
Custodial Interrogations
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Photographic Lineups
NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic lineups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Bias-Free Policing
NOPD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Policing Free of Gender Bias
NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the New Orleans Family Justice Center, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response.
Community Engagement
NOPD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, and to engage constructively with the community, to ensure collaborative problem solving and ethical and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department.
Recruitment
NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 115 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to ensure that NOPD’s recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible.
Academy and In-Service Training
NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety.
Officer Assistance and Support
NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.
Performance Evaluations and Promotions
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process, and that officers who lead effectively and ethically are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD shall further ensure that poor performance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is reflected in officer evaluations so that NOPD can identify and effectively respond.
Supervision
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct.
Secondary Employment System
The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Page 116 of 116 August 31, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. Transparency and Oversight
To ensure comprehensive, effective, and transparent oversight of NOPD, NOPD and the City agree to develop, implement, and maintain systems that are meant to be sustained after the completion of the Consent Decree. To facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, these oversight systems shall ensure that improper incidents, practices, or trends are identified and corrected in an equitable and timely manner.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 11 f"ILf:D
U.S. OISTfliCT COURT fhS";Ef~li DISTRICT Or LOU

2011 JUL 24 PH 1: f

lo ,. , •. T. . ' H'f-· 'I I-: 1 ~)>...!.«..

•• '

A
\ ....

"f~·J\

I

Ct......F... !r>\!''\' .,,,...,.-__

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

CIVIL~~~ 1924 ""
NUMBER:
E MAG. 2 sEcTmrSECI

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

*

Defendant

*

* * *

JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE
I. Introduction The City ofNew Orleans ("City"), and the United States of America (collectively, ''the parties") request that this Court enter the Consent Decree agreed to by the parties ("Consent Decree") as an order of the Court. The United States has filed a Complaint pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101-.112 ("Title VI"). The parties seek to resolve that litigation with entry of the attached negotiated Consent Decree.

I
'·
, I·,·.·

- - - - - - - - ------------
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 2 of 11
The United States' Complaint alleges that the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD"), an agent of the City, engages in, inter alia, a pattern or practice of subjecting individuals to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and discriminatory policing practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI. The City denies these allegations contained in the Complaint. The Consent Decree is intended to ensure that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
II. Legal Standard Settlement via consent decree is to be encouraged. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977). To facilitate the proper settling of disputes without resort to contested litigation, when presented with a proposed consent decree, courts should ascertain that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and is not the product of collusion between the parties. Id at 1330. In making this determination, judges should "undertake an analysis of the facts and the law relevant to the proposed compromise." !d. In considering whether to approve a consent decree, courts should consider the nature of the litigation and the purpose to be served by the consent decree, including whether the decree is consistent with the objectives Congress sought to obtain by the statute. United States v. City ofMiami, 664 F.2d 435, 441 (Former 5th Cir. Dec. 1981). The court may rely on the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties and, absent fraud or collusion, should be hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel. Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330 (citing Flinn v. FMC Corp., 528 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1975)).
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 3 of 11
III. Discussion
The Consent Decree between the City of New Orleans and the United States Department of Justice is fair, adequate, and reasonable. It is fully consistent with the statutes being enforced and the public objectives of those statutes. Congress enacted Title VI because it recognized the need for a statutory nondiscrimination provision such as Title VI to apply across-the-board "to make sure that funds of the United States are not used to support racial discrimination." II 0 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964) (Statement of Sen. Hubert Humphrey). The Safe Streets Act applies to grants funded by the Department of Justice, and prohibits discrimination in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with these funds. Congress intended Section 14141 to "close [the] gap in the law'' caused by the Justice Department's lack of authority to address systemic patterns or practices of police misconduct through injunctive relief. H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, pt. 1, at 137 (1991). Section 14141 prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice "that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." 42 U.S.C. § 14141. It contains no limitation on the nature of the constitutional or federal rights that it protects. Congress intended to grant the Justice Department the authority to sue police departments to correct the underlying policies that lead to abusive practices. H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, pt. I, at 137. This need to supplement the Department of Justice's criminal prosecution authority to prevent constitutional violations by law enforcement officers is thus one of the explicit reasons that Section 14141 exists.
The United States' extensive 2011 investigation of the New Orleans Police Department provides additional evidence that the Consent Decree furthers the objectives of Section 14141, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI. The investigative team consisted oflawyers and other staff
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 4 of 11
from the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, working closely with police professionals with expertise in the areas on which the investigation focused. With due regard for on-going criminal prosecutions, the investigation was one of the most extensive investigations of a law enforcement agency ever conducted by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The investigation was conducted with the full cooperation of the City and NOPD.
The Special Litigation Section and its police experts gathered information through many interviews and meetings with NOPD officers, supervisors and command staff, as well as members of the public, City and State officials, and other community stakeholders. The investigation included on- and off-site review of a wide array of documents, including policies and procedures, training materials, incident reports, use of force reports, crime investigation files, data collected by NOPD, complaints of misconduct, and misconduct investigations. Special Litigation representatives and experts participated in ride-alongs with officers and supervisors, attended COMSTAT meetings, observed police activity, and met with representatives of police unions/fraternal organizations and several larger group officer "round tables" to elicit officer concerns and ideas about how to improve services provided by NOPD.
The investigation included participation in over 40 community meetings, including meetings held at the request of the United States, as well as regularly scheduled community meetings, including New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council and Rape Crisis Network meetings, among many others. The investigation further included meetings with judges from the state and municipal courts and members of the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, the Orleans Public Defenders, the Civil Service Commission, the New Orleans Office of the Independent Police Monitor, the New Orleans City Council, Louisiana State legislators, the Business Council of New Orleans & the River Region, the New Orleans Police and Justice
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 5 of 11
Foundation, and the New Orleans Crime Coalition. Pursuant to this investigation, the United States has reasonable cause to believe that a
number of patterns or practices of conduct by NOPD and its officers violate the Constitution and federal statutory law. The United States also alleges that particular policies and practices contribute to and cause the patterns and practices of unlawful conduct. The City denies the existence of any pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by the Defendant or its agents, including NOPD and its officers. The parties' disagreement about whether NOPD continues to violate the law does not preclude entry of the Consent Decree. See, e.g., United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971) ("Because the defendant has, by the decree, waived his right to litigate the issues raised ... the conditions upon which he has given that waiver must be respected..."); Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 (1981) (The parties do not need to admit liability, because doing so "den[ies] the parties their right to compromise their dispute on mutually agreeable terms."); Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1130 ("It cannot be overemphasized that neither the trial court in approving the settlement nor this Court in reviewing that approval have the right or the duty to reach any ultimate conclusions on the issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the dispute.").
A discussion of some of the evidence underlying the United States' investigative findings is contained in the March 16, 2011 report of that investigation, which is attached and incorporated by reference herein. That investigation establishes a more than adequate factual record supporting the legitimacy of this Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree is thus consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 14141, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI because it embodies the agreement of the City and its police department to ensure constitutional policing. The Consent Decree requires the City and its
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 6 of 11
police department to implement new policies, training, and practices throughout NOPD, including in each of the areas the United States' investigation found problematic: use of force; stops, searches, seizures, and arrests; custodial interrogations; discriminatory policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication.
Perhaps as importantly, the Consent Decree is appropriate here because voluntary compliance through a consent decree is more likely to accomplish the statutory goals than will orders imposed at the end of bitter and protracted litigation. United States v. City ofMiami, 664 F. 2d at 441; United States v. City ofJackson, Miss., 519 F.2d 1147, 1152 n.9 (5th Cir. 1975) ("Because of the consensual nature ofthe decree, voluntary compliance is rendered more likely . . . At the same time, the parties ... minimize costly litigation and adverse publicity and avoid the collateral effects of adjudicated guilt.").
Many New Orleans police officers have expressed their desire to continue under the Consent Decree the hard work that has begun, uli.der New Orleans's current Mayor and Police Superintendent, of transforming NOPD into a world class police department. Because of practices that developed under prior administrations, the difficult job of a police officer has been made more difficult in New Orleans by policies that are obsolete or disregarded, training that is inadequate in amount and quality, and accountability that is lax and inconsistent. These poor police practices prevented many NOPD officers from being as effective as they might otherwise have been, and have compromised their ability to garner the cooperation and respect from the broader New Orleans' community that the police profession deserves and that NOPD officers need to be effective at preventing crime. The Consent Decree will assist not only the City as a
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 7 of 11
whole but in particular the NOPD officers who have continued to work diligently and with integrity despite these difficult circumstances. The Consent Decree will hasten the process of providing NOPD officers better policy guidance, more training, closer supervision, broader officer support systems, and mechanisms to help ensure that accountability and investigations of misconduct are fair and constructive. The Consent Decree will set into motion systems to better prepare and support NOPD officers, and will dramatically improve the relationship between NOPD and the community it polices. Settling this dispute without protracted litigation thus allows the City, the United States, and NOPD officers to achieve one of their primary goals: undertaking extensive and critically needed reform ofNOPD without unnecessary delay.
In addition to permitting the City and NOPD to have a larger voice in creating the remedy to correct the patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct within NOPD, it resolves the dispute without the "loss of 'the nation's investment in the resources consumed by the federal agencies in negotiating these decrees ...."' United States v. City ofMiami, 614 F.2d 1322, 1333 (5th Cir. 1980), a.ffd in part, vacated and remanded in part on reh'g, 664 F.2d 435 (citing United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., 517 F.2d 826,851 (5th Cir. 1975)). Consent decrees are important tools in enforcing statutes, since they "maximize[] the effectiveness oflimited law enforcement resources" while "avoid[ing] the risks as well as the costs of full scale litigation of each point." Jackson, 519 F.2d at 1151.
The nature and extent ofthe nine months of negotiations that were undertaken in arriving at this Consent Decree provide the Court with further assurance that it is necessary and adequate to remediate the discovered violations, despite the absence oflitigation. While courts must approve consent decrees, they do not "inquire into the precise legal rights ofthe respective parties." !d. at 1151. Instead, in determining that the Consent Decree is fair, adequate and
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 8 of 11
reasonable, the Court may rely on the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties. Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330.
The parties in the instant case are experienced litigators who engaged in "a process of compromise in which 'in exchange for the savings of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with litigation."' Jackson, 519 F.2d at 1152, quoting United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. at 682. The Justice Department is tasked with seeing that the law is enforced and took steps to ensure that the concerns of all interested were considered in reaching this Consent Decree. During the course of drafting and negotiating the Consent Decree, the Justice Department consulted with various community stakeholders who may be affected by the Consent Decree, including police commanders, supervisors, and line officers; union leadership; and a broad spectrum of advocacy groups, criminal justice organizations, and related community stakeholders to ensure that their concerns were heard and considered.
The City, while sharing the United States' goal of ensuring constitutional policing by NOPD, does not wish to give up more control ofNOPD than is necessary. Both parties are intimately familiar with the practices ofNOPD and spent long hours negotiating the Consent Decree. Both parties consulted with subject matter experts to ensure that each remedial measure in the Consent Decree is tailored to address the concern and may be reasonably implemented. This adversarial posture, combined with the respective duties ofthese government agencies towards those they represent, provides further assurance that the Consent Decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and may be relied upon by the Court in so finding. See City ofMiami, 614 F.2d at 1332.
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 9 of 11
IV. Conclusion The Consent Decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be entered as an Order of this Court. The goal of the parties in arriving at this Consent Decree is to dramatically and fundamentally reform NOPD to achieve protection of the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of New Orleans, and increase public confidence in NOPD. It is a compromise arrived at through protracted negotiations conducted by experienced and sophisticated litigants, aided on both sides by subject matter experts, and with an eye towards their shared goals of reform. As with all compromises, the Consent Decree does not incorporate every wish of either party. However, by setting out a road map for reform, to be overseen by this Court with the assistance of a court approved monitor, this Consent Decree furthers the shared goals of the parties, as well as the intent of Congress in enacting Section 14141, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI to end the pattern or practice of misconduct and discrimination by law enforcement officers. The parties request that this Court enter the Consent Decree as an Order of the Court.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 10 of 11
Respectfully submitted this_ day of _ _ _ _, 2012
For the UNITED STATES:
~z:Qc=
THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
211491) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC 473612) Deputy Chief COREY M. SANDERS (DC 490940) Trial Attorney
ct~
EMILY A. GUNSTON (T.A.) (CA 218035) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 514-6255 Email: emily.gunston@usdoj.gov 10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 2 Filed 07/24/12 Page 11 of 11
City Attorney 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel.: 504.658.9800 Email: rfcortizas@nola.gov
11

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 110 Filed 09/06/12 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER

The City of New Orleans (the “City”) and the United States of America (the “United

States”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter

the proposed Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans Police Department as an Order

of the Court.1 The proposed Consent Decree requires a Consent Decree Monitor

(“Monitor”) to oversee and report on its implementation. The proposed Consent Decree

further requires the Parties to select a mutually acceptable Monitor, subject to Court

approval.

Before the Court is the United States’ motion for leave to distribute a Request for

Proposals, with attachments A-D (“RFP”), requesting proposals from those wishing to serve

as Monitor.2

The City and the United States agree that an RFP should be distributed and that it

should contain a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) contract goal of thirty-five

percent, meaning that thirty-five percent of contract or subcontract dollars should be

1R. Doc. 2.
2R. Docs. 44 and 107. The United States filed an amended version of the RFP on September 5, 2012. R. Doc. 107. The amended RFP contains extended deadlines, but there are no other substantive changes from the original version filed as R. Doc. 44-3.
1


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 110 Filed 09/06/12 Page 2 of 5
allocated to one or more certified DBEs during the Monitor’s contract term.3 However, the Parties disagree about the manner in which entities seeking to serve as Monitor, or their subcontractors, will be certified as DBEs. The City maintains that only DBEs certified pursuant to the City’s DBE program should be counted.4 The United States argues that “all DBEs should be given the opportunity to participate, whether they are certified pursuant to the City’s system, or another DBE system.”5
The United States contends that it should be able to solicit proposals from a nationwide pool of applicants because of the nature of the Monitor’s work and the level of specialization required.6 Consequently, the United States’ proposed RFP permits a business certified as a DBE by any local, state or national DBE certification process to be considered DBE-certified for the purposes of meeting the contract goal.7 The United States maintains that the Court has the authority to approve such a proposal, and it urges the Court to do so in order for the Parties to receive the most qualified applicants for the Monitor’s position. In response, the City acknowledges that the majority of current City-certified DBEs are from southern Louisiana, but argues that this is not a reason to allow DBE certification by local, state or national governmental bodies other than those already accepted by the City
3R. Docs. 44-1 at p. 2 and 107.
 4R. Doc. 49.
 5R. Doc. 44-1 at p. 2.
 6 R. Doc. 44-1 at p. 2.
 7 Businesses that are not currently DBE-certified will be permitted to seek certification, but only
 from the City through an expedited process.
2


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 110 Filed 09/06/12 Page 3 of 5
under Exec. Order No. MJL 10-02 (June 3, 2010).8 “Consent decrees are judgments despite their contractual nature, and district courts
may fashion remedies to ‘enforce prior judgments.’ ” United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 533 F.3d 278, 288 (5th 2008) (quoting Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 577 (5th Cir. 2005)). Consequently, pursuant to its equity jurisdiction, a district court has “wide discretion to enforce [consent] decrees” and may issue orders as necessary to effectuate compliance with such decrees over which it has jurisdiction. Id. at 286. The Court observes that other district courts have invoked their equitable power to order parties to bypass local procurement rules or other similar regulations to ensure compliance with their orders. See, e.g., United States v. City of Detroit, No. 77-71100, 2011 WL 4014409, at *24 (“The Court further concludes that an effective equitable remedy to achieve sustained compliance will require this Court to order structural changes regarding the [Detroit Water and Sewerage Department] that will likely override the City of Detroit’s Charter, its local ordinances, and/or some existing contracts.”). The Court further observes that in other cases involving consent decrees negotiated to resolve claims brought pursuant to the Violent Crime Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. § 14141), the United States participated in selecting monitors outside of a jurisdiction’s standard procurement procedure. See, e.g., United States v. Los Angeles, No. 00-11769 (C.D. Cal.); United States v. Detroit, No. 77-71100 (E.D. Mich.).9
8 R. Doc. 49 at p. 1. Harrah’s Jazz Casino also certifies businesses as DBEs and this certification is accorded reciprocity with the City’s State & Local Disadvantage Business Enterprise Certification Program. See <http://www.nola.gov/BUSINESSES/Office-of-Supplier-Diversity/ Certification-Programs-and-Applications/>.
9 The United States also submits that it has “jointly selected, outside of the [relevant jurisdictions’] procurement process[es], monitors to oversee the reform of State systems for the delivery of services to people with mental illness and developmental disabilities in Georgia, Delaware, and Virginia, and in many
3


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 110 Filed 09/06/12 Page 4 of 5
In New Orleans, the City’s DBE certification process is not found in the City Code or the City’s Home Rule Charter. Rather, it is set out by Executive Order of the Mayor as a policy to be followed “until the DBE program is reformed and a centralized Diversity and Inclusion program and office and adequately staffed as determined by the Mayor of New Orleans.”10 As a result, the Court notes that the RFP proposed by the United States does not conflict with the City Code or the Home Rule Charter.
Exercising its equity jurisdiction, the Court finds that the United States’ proposed RFP sets forth the better procedure for selecting the Monitor to oversee the proposed Consent Decree. The United States’ RFP recognizes DBE certification by the City and even provides a method for expedited processing of applications for DBE certification by, and only by, the City. At the same time, the United States’ proposal ensures the nationwide pool of applicants necessary to find the expertise needed. While the Court is authorizing issuance of the RFP at this time, a professional services contract will be executed with the Monitor if, and only if, the Consent Decree is approved by the Court. If the Consent Decree is approved, the DBE provisions set forth herein will be incorporated into the professional services contract with the Monitor. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion as amended for leave to distribute the proposed RFP attached hereto as Exhibit A be and is hereby GRANTED.11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order and the attached RFP must be posted
prison and jail cases.” R. Doc. 44-1 at p. 3 (citing United States v. Georgia, No. 09-119 (N.D. Ga.); United States v. Delaware, No. 11-591 (D. De); United States v. Virginia, No. 12-59 (E.D. Va.)).
10 City of New Orleans, Exec. Order No. MJL 10-02 (June 3, 2010). 11 R. Docs. 44 and 107.
4


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 110 Filed 09/06/12 Page 5 of 5
on the United States and City’s websites and distributed to the list of potential respondents attached hereto as Exhibit B.12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pre-proposal conference referenced in Section V (“Pre-Proposal Conference; Questions Regarding RFP”) of the RFP will be held September 20, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. CST in Room C-467, Fourth Floor, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any addendums to the RFP, including the form of the professional services contract to be entered into with the Monitor, subject to Court approval of the Consent Decree and the selection of the Monitor, must be submitted to the Court for approval prior to the addendum’s publication.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Evaluation Committee’s selected “short list” of candidates for Monitor, referenced in Section VI (“Selection Process”) of the RFP, must be filed with the Court at least five working days before interviews are scheduled to be held and must include the names of the candidates for Monitor and the dates, times and locations of the interviews. The interviews are to be conducted in a public forum.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of September, 2012.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 The Court observes that, as Exhibit B states, this list is not exclusive and is no way intended to limit or discourage application by any interested individual or entity. The Parties will provide a copy of the RFP to any potential respondent who requests it.
5

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 160 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

JUDGMENT

Considering the Court’s written Order and Reasons1 entered on January 11, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Joint Motions for

Entry of Decree filed by the United States of America and the City of New Orleans,

Louisiana,2 are GRANTED and the Parties’ proposed Consent Decree filed on July 24,

2012, is APPROVED AS AMENDED by changes shown on the Parties’ Errata Sheet filed

on September 14, 2012.3

New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of January, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


1 R. Doc. 159.
 2 R. Docs. 2 and 114.
 3 R. Docs. 2-1 and 114-2.


 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 262 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-1924

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant

SECTION “E”

NOTICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of New Orleans has appealed the

Court’s order approving the Consent Decree to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) and requested an emergency stay of all proceedings in the above-

captioned matter. The Fifth Circuit has temporarily stayed all proceedings until further

notice. As a result, the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee’s May 31, 2013

meeting to select the Monitor has been CANCELED.

The Court will issue further orders, as appropriate, upon receipt of the Fifth Circuit’s

forthcoming ruling.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of May, 2013.

_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff

*

NUMBER: 12-1924

v.

*

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

*

Defendant

*

SECTION: E JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN
DIVISION 2 MAG. J. WILKINSON

* * *

UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM RECOMMENDING SHEPPARD MULLIN AS CONSENT DECREE MONITOR

The United States and the City of New Orleans (“City”) (collectively, “the Parties”)

entered into a Consent Decree (“Decree”) in July 2012 to address entrenched systemic problems

within the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) and “ensure that police services are

delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws

of the United States.” See Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree [ECF No. 2]. This Court

entered the Decree as an order of the Court on January 11, 2013. Order Approving Consent

Decree [ECF No. 159]. There is no serious question, given the nature and scope of the problems

within NOPD, as well as NOPD’s previous unsuccessful attempts at self-correction, that the

Decree is necessary to correct the longstanding patterns of constitutional misconduct identified

by the United States during its exhaustive investigation of the police department. See March 16,

2011 Findings Report [ECF No. 1-1] (“Findings”) at 1-50. For the Decree to be successful, the

best available monitoring team should be selected. After assessing each of the applicants to be

Monitor, the United States found that the Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard

Mullin”) Team, far more than any other candidate, possesses the necessary qualifications to

effectively and efficiently guide NOPD’s implementation of the Decree.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 20

The Monitor has myriad responsibilities under the Decree. For example, the Monitor must be able to credibly report to the Court and the public whether the requirements of the Decree are being met. The City has asserted that the requirements of the Decree are already being implemented and that reform is well under way.1 Yet, there are strong indications that the problems that the United States documented in its Findings nearly two years ago persist.2 Without an effective monitor in place, no one will truly know whether constitutional policing is in fact taking hold in NOPD.
In addition to having the capacity to accurately and credibly assess compliance, it is also essential that a monitoring team have direct experience facilitating wide-scale police reform; be led by a strong and credible lead monitor; be independent and be perceived to be independent; and have the capacity not only to determine whether compliance has been achieved, but why noncompliance might exist and what steps are necessary to correct it.
The United States has sought to work cooperatively with the City since the outset of this investigation to identify such a Monitor. Unfortunately, the Parties have been unable to reach consensus and, as provided for in the Decree, now look to the Court to resolve this dispute.

1

See, e.g., City’s Reply Mem. in Support of Mot. to Vacate Consent Decree Pursuant to Rule 60 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [ECF No. 202] at 3-4 (“The City is continuing its reform of the NOPD and will do

so regardless of the existence of the NOPD Consent Decree.”); NOPD Reform Status Report, May 2010-December

2012, at 31-32 [attached as Exhibit A] (asserting that by December 2012 NOPD had achieved 40% of the 147 action

items recommended by DOJ’s Report, and that the Decree essentially captures most of these action items).

2

See, e.g., Office of the Inspector General, Independent Police Monitor, City of New Orleans, Review of the

New Orleans Police Department’s Field Interview Policies, Practices, and Data, March 12, 2013 [attached as

Exhibit B] (finding ongoing constitutional violations in NOPD’s field interview policies and practices); John

Simerman, Crime Experts Question NOPD Stats that Paint New Orleans as a Safe City with a Murder Problem, The

Times Picayune, May 18, 2013 [attached as Exhibit C] (calling into question NOPD’s crime statistics and reporting

practices, similar to the problematic classification practices of sexual assault found by the United States in 2010);

Edmund W. Lewis, Residents Want End to Violence, Consent Decree, The Louisiana Weekly, May 20, 2013

[attached as Exhibit D]; see also John Simerman, Mayor Landrieu to Federal Judge: NOPD Consent Decree ‘Not

Necessary,’ The Times Picayune, Feb. 22, 2013 [attached as Exhibit E] (quoting Superintended Serpas as saying “I

absolutely think the consent decree in the long run is what the department is going to need”); Letter from Jacinta

Gonzalez et al., Congress of Day Laborers, to NOPD Supt. Serpas (June 12, 2013) [attached as Exhibit F] (raising

concerns that deficiencies in NOPD’s delivery of services to non-English speakers are ongoing); Comments of Wes

Ware, Director, BreakOut! New Orleans, at June 13, 2013 Monitor Selection Committee Meeting (Tr. forthcoming)

(voicing concerns regarding NOPD’s current interactions with LBGT and Latino communities).

2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 20

While there is value in achieving agreement on the selection of a Monitor, reaching consensus must not come at the expense of selecting a monitoring team that will be effective. The interests at stake—the civil rights of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of New Orleans residents; NOPD’s effectiveness as a law enforcement agency; and the trust between the people of New Orleans and the officers sworn to serve them—require selection of a team with the experience, independence, and quality to successfully implement the Consent Decree.
Therefore, as requested in the Court’s June 6, 2013 Order [ECF No. 267], the United States submits this Memorandum recommending that the Court select the Sheppard Mullin Team as Consent Decree Monitor.
BACKGROUND The Decree provides that, “within 90 days of the Effective Date,3 or additional time if agreed to by the Parties, the City and DOJ shall together select a Monitor, acceptable to both” who will “assess and report whether the requirements of this Agreement have been implemented, and whether the implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” Decree ¶¶ 477, 444. The Decree further provides that, if “the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within the timeframes agreed to by both parties as of the Effective Date, then the Court shall resolve the disagreement.” Id. at ¶ 478. Pursuant to these provisions, the Parties began the task of selecting a monitoring team well before the Court entered the Decree in January 2013. On September 6, 2012, the Parties issued a Request for Proposals to Serve as Consent Decree Court Monitor of the New Orleans Police Department [ECF No. 110-1] (“RFP”). The RFP outlined the primary responsibilities of the Monitor as set forth in the Decree. See RFP at 6-7. To ensure that monitoring candidates

3

Ninety days from the Effective Date was April 11, 2013.

3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 4 of 20
possessed the requisite capacities, the RFP also identified a list of qualifications that any monitor candidate should possess. RFP at 8. This list of qualifications included, inter alia: expertise in law enforcement practices, including training, community policing and problem-oriented policing, and complaint and use of force investigation; expertise in monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders; expertise in evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures; and institutional transformation and change management. RFP at 8. The RFP also required candidates to provide a detailed price proposal. RFP at 9.
Eleven candidates submitted proposals. The Parties formed an Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) and each designated five persons to serve on it. See January 23, 2013 Order [ECF No. 162]. The Parties agreed that “the Monitor selection process is not subject to the City’s procurement rules,” but nonetheless established a selection process that was transparent and allowed for significant public comment. See Joint Notice of Agreement on Process to Select a Consent Decree Monitor and Request to Modify Feb. 20, 2013 Order [ECF No. 205]; Mar. 6, 2013 Order [ECF No. 206] (granting motion). Pursuant to that agreement, the Committee held four public meetings between March 7, 2013 and April 15, 2013. At these public meetings, the Committee discussed the monitoring proposals; interviewed a “short list” of candidates to be considered; solicited and considered comments from the community regarding the potential monitors; and further narrowed the candidates for Monitor. See March 6, 2013 Order [ECF No. 206] (setting forth selection process schedule).
On April 3, 2013, the Committee narrowed the field to two candidates: the United States recommended the Sheppard Mullin Team, led by Jonathan Aronie, David Douglass, and former Charlotte-Mecklenburg Chief Dennis Nowicki; the City recommended the Hillard Heintze Team,
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 5 of 20
led by Arnette Heintze and former Chicago Superintendent of Police Terry Hillard (“Hillard Heintze”). See Tr. of April 3, 2013 Committee meeting [ECF No. 272] at 151-60. Since narrowing the candidates to the above two teams, the Parties have been engaged in almost daily correspondence and discussions in an attempt to agree on a single proposal or to reach a compromise. Two members from each of the Parties conducted more than ten additional interviews of team leadership, members, potential members, and references. In their efforts to agree upon a monitor, the Parties also devoted significant time to exploring alternative teams. The Parties asked Sheppard Mullin and Hillard Heintze to each consider one alternative configuration and provide a cost proposal based on this configuration. Ultimately, these efforts were unsuccessful, in part because of the Parties’ fundamental disagreement about team leadership, and in part because several of the individuals named as part of these newly configured teams indicated that they would not likely agree to serve on a team with different leadership. On June 13, 2013, the Parties held a fifth public meeting at which they announced that they were unable to agree on a Monitor.
DISCUSSION The Sheppard Mullin Team has demonstrated experience monitoring comprehensive agreements designed to correct civil rights violations and ensure constitutional policing. Further, the Sheppard Mullin Team will be seen from the outset as independent, capable, and credible. It also is significantly superior to any of the “compromise” teams the Parties explored during the monitor evaluation period, was publicly vetted, and represents the most cost-effective choice for the City.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 6 of 20

I. The Sheppard Mullin Team has a Depth and Breadth of Skills and Experience that Place it in the Best Position to Effectively Monitor this Decree
The Sheppard Mullin Team stood out among all the candidates as having assembled a
team—including team leadership—that is ready and able to successfully monitor and assist
NOPD’s efforts to implement this Decree. The Team not only embodies a breadth of experience
that covers each area addressed by the Decree and each qualification required by the RFP, but
also reflects a diversity of perspectives that will enrich and inform the Team’s analysis, allowing
the Team to engage more effectively with a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
The Sheppard Mullin Team is comprised of the following:4
1. Jonathan Aronie is the lead Monitor of this Team. He is the co-managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Sheppard Mullin5 and has helped lead long-term police reform efforts. As Deputy Monitor of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) in Washington, D.C. pursuant to its Memorandum of Agreement with the United States, Mr. Aronie developed the monitoring plan for MPD. This plan was successfully carried out, resulting in MPD exiting that agreement in six years, with most requirements fulfilled well before that time. See Final Report of the Independent Monitor for the MPD, available at http://www.policemonitor.org/MPD/ MPDindex.html.
2. David Douglass is one of two Deputy Monitors on the Sheppard Mullin Team. Mr. Douglass also is a partner at Sheppard Mullin. He is a former federal prosecutor in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, and thus brings an important civil rights perspective to the Team. He has also prosecuted individuals who committed unlawful acts against the police as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts. Further preparing him for his role as Deputy Monitor, Mr. Douglass has conducted high-profile, closely scrutinized reviews of critical incidents, including: the 1994 White House Security Review following a small-plane crash on the White House lawn, and the Treasury Department’s 1993 investigation of the raid on the David Koresh compound in Waco, Texas.
3. Chief Dennis Nowicki, the second Deputy Monitor, brings deep subject matter expertise, as well as extensive monitoring experience. Chief Nowicki is a leading

4

Resumes and profiles are attached as Exhibit G (Aronie); H (Douglass); I (Nowicki); J (Bowman); K

(McNeilly); L (Viverette); M (Alpert); N (Del Carmen); O (Williams Dangerfield).

5

Additional Sheppard Mullin employees will be available as necessary to assist in this monitoring effort.

See Sheppard Mullin Proposal [ECF No. 270] at 6, 10. Having the resources of a major U.S. law firm available on

an as-needed basis will likely decrease costs by allowing some tasks to be completed at a lower cost or by

administrative personnel for whom Sheppard Mullin does not bill. See Letter from Jonathan Aronie to Danny

Cazenave and Christy Lopez (April 24, 2013) [attached as Exhibit P].

6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 7 of 20
authority on use of force, including officer involved shootings. In addition, he was one of the earliest, and remains one of the strongest, supporters of community and problem-solving policing. He has played lead roles overseeing implementation of the agreements to reform MPD and the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department.
4. Chief Theron Bowman is one of three subject matter experts. Until recently, he served as the Chief of the police department in Arlington, Texas, a City that resembles New Orleans in both size and demographics. He is currently the Deputy City Manager and Public Safety Director of the City of Arlington. He is widely recognized as a leading authority on community policing. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy and wrote his thesis on The Predictive Value of Policies in Determining Police Officer Actions.
5. Chief Robert McNeilly is the second of three subject matter experts. He brings a wide range of subject matter expertise, especially in the area of stops, searches, and arrests, as well as Early Warning Systems. He also offers the unique perspective of having been through the process of being monitored—he served as police chief in Pittsburgh throughout its consent decree with the Department of Justice. The City of Pittsburgh reached compliance with that decree in two and a half years, and was released from the decree in five and a half years in 2002. Pittsburgh maintains one of the lowest crime rates per capita in the nation.
6. Chief Mary Ann Viverette is the third of three subject matter experts. She is the former chief of the Gaithersburg, Maryland Police Department, is a past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and assessor with the Commission for Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. As such, she has helped to establish model police practice standards, and has reviewed the policies and procedures of hundreds of departments nationwide. She also has been a leader in the area of improving police investigations of sexual assault and domestic violence, a critical component of this Decree that has not been included in previous police department consent decrees.
7. Professor Geoffrey Alpert provides an analytical and evidence-based perspective that is necessary for the successful execution of many of the Monitor’s duties under the Decree. Dr. Alpert has conducted extensive study in myriad aspects of police practice and has long been a national leader in the field of officer use of force.
8. Professor Alejandro Del Carmen has done significant work studying the interactions between police and marginalized community members and recently wrote a book on racial profiling. Dr. Del Carmen also is a native Spanish speaker, which will enhance the Team’s ability to work directly with non-English speaking Latino members of the New Orleans community.
9. Judith Williams Dangerfield will perform community outreach for the Sheppard Mullin Team. Ms. Williams Dangerfield and her firm have significant community organizing expertise. She has demonstrated experience in seeking information from a
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 8 of 20

broad swath of the community, including those who do not attend community meetings and who do not have access to the internet.6

A. The Sheppard Mullin Team Leadership has the Experience and Understanding Necessary to Guide Constitutional Reform.

A monitoring team’s leadership should be the primary selection criteria. That leadership

will determine the team’s approach; direct and plan the team’s efforts; and recruit or let go team

members and subcontractors throughout the term of the Decree (within the parameters set out in

the Decree). Monitoring leadership must have fortitude, integrity, and the courage of their

convictions to withstand the critique and pressure to which they are certain to be subjected

throughout their tenure. Their experience, values, and judgment will guide the difficult decisions

that monitoring requires on a nearly daily basis, and will ultimately determine whether the

monitoring team becomes a help or a hindrance to achieving constitutional policing.

In addition, it is particularly important here that the monitoring team’s leadership have

specific skill and experience in the area of monitoring a comprehensive agreement meant to

correct longstanding patterns of unconstitutional conduct. The breadth of this Decree is

unprecedented in the area of police reform, and the dynamics surrounding it are complex. Given

this, as well as the urgent need for reform, this project is not an appropriate one for a leadership

team to gain the needed skills and experience while the project is ongoing.

The Sheppard Mullin Team has the leadership necessary to effectively monitor this

Decree. Jonathan Aronie, the lead monitor, served as Deputy Independent Monitor overseeing

implementation of MPD’s agreement to reform that department. He served in this role for over a

6

The Sheppard Mullin Team elected to wait to select its local team members until after it consulted with the

Parties and members of the New Orleans community, an approach for which the community has expressed support.

See Sheppard Mullin Proposal at 36-37; Apr. 3 Tr. at 32-33, 45-48, 59-60, 104-05; Comments of Norris Henderson,

Director, VOTE New Orleans (Tr. forthcoming) (voicing approval of Sheppard Mullin’s approach). Ms. Williams

Dangerfield was initially included on the Hillard Heintze proposal and participated in the interviews of the Hillard

Heintze Team on April 2. Impressed with Ms. Williams Dangerfield’s experience and expertise, the Parties inquired

and confirmed that she would be willing to serve on any selected monitoring team. The Sheppard Mullin Team has

agreed to add her to their Team should they be selected. See Email from Jonathan Aronie to Monitor Selection

Committee re: “New Orleans Monitorship-Alternate Cost Estimate” (May 10, 2013) [attached as Exhibit Q].

8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 9 of 20
year, and made a significant and foundational contribution to that monitoring effort. City and United States members of the Committee spoke with the MPD officer who was tasked with coordinating MPD’s implementation of that agreement. This officer reported that he had significant contact with Mr. Aronie and that Mr. Aronie oversaw the day-to-day implementation of the agreement. The officer reported that MPD officers found Mr. Aronie open-minded, fair, and highly effective.
Joshua Ederheimer, a former member of the MPD command staff who took the lead role on MPD’s implementation efforts, has a similar assessment of Mr. Aronie. Mr. Ederheimer, who now serves as Acting Director of DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”), was asked by the United States to serve on the Evaluation Committee in February 2013 because of the officer perspective he would provide. Discussing Mr. Aronie during a monitor selection public meeting, Mr. Ederheimer stated:
As a police commander—as a sworn police commander in Washington DC for the Washington DC Police Department, I, in essence, was the one being monitored. And I felt that from a police perspective he was incredibly knowledgeable, but he was fair, unbiased, and had a lot of common sense. And I think that's one of the reasons why the DC Police agreement was resolved in a relatively fast fashion. And that was a pretty major reform. Tr. of Apr. 15, 2013 Committee meeting [ECF No. 273] at 40. David Douglass, one of the two Deputy Monitors, adds a critical civil rights perspective to the Team. This Decree stems entirely from NOPD’s alleged pattern of violating constitutional rights. As such, any monitoring team needs to ensure that this perspective informs its review and assessment of NOPD’s practices. Moreover, including a civil rights perspective will help ensure that a monitoring team’s findings will be more credible to a broader spectrum of stakeholders than if they reflect only the police perspective. As a former federal civil rights prosecutor, Mr. Douglass understands the contours of constitutional rights and the legal limits on police conduct.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 10 of 20
See Douglass Resume. Mr. Douglass’s civil rights background will be vital to the Team’s review of specific police actions, including use of force incidents and stops, searches, and arrests. See, e.g., Decree ¶¶ 450-55.
Chief Dennis Nowicki is also a Deputy Monitor on the Sheppard Mullin Team, and is its lead police practice expert. Chief Nowicki has a long career in law enforcement, having served five years as the Chief of Police for the City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and 26 years in the Chicago Police Department (rising to the rank of Deputy Superintendent). As a Chief, he was a leader in community policing. See Apr. 3, 2013 Tr. at 84-85. Chief Nowicki has significant experience as a monitor and law enforcement expert in other constitutional reform police cases. See id. at 12-13; Nowicki Resume. Chief Nowicki’s background as both a reform police chief and an experienced monitor provides him with unique experience that enables effective oversight and that would lend credibility to his findings and recommendations.
The Sheppard Mullin Team’s leadership stands in stark contrast to the leadership offered by the Hillard Heintze Team. Hillard Heintze is a security and law enforcement management consultant group. See, e.g., Hillard Heintze Proposal at Appendices H, I, J [ECF Nos. 269-3, 269-4]. Neither Superintendent Hillard nor Mr. Heintze has monitored constitutional reform in police departments on any scale—nor has either guided implementation of a large, complex, department-wide police department decree.
Having served as Superintendent of Chicago Police for a number of years, Superintendent Hillard does bring considerable police practice experience to the Team; but that experience does not automatically translate into the skill set and judgment that this project requires. A monitor has a distinct focus, mandate, and set of responsibilities from a chief. Superintendent Hillard’s tenure in Chicago does not alone equip him for the position of Monitor, and does not alone reflect any particular ability or dedication to ensuring constitutional policing.
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 11 of 20
Mr. Heintze brings even less relevant experience to bear, as he is not a police practice expert, has no legal expertise, and has no experience monitoring a department-wide reform effort. Mr. Heintze is a retired U.S. Secret Service Agent with expertise in the field of Homeland Security. As Mr. Heintze’s own team-members conceded during the follow-up interviews, the Secret Service, charged primarily with providing security, does not resemble a large, urban police department such as NOPD in either function or practice. Mr. Heintze’s lack of relevant experience is especially concerning given that, by all indications, it is Mr. Heintze, not Superintendent Hillard, who would be directing this monitoring effort if the Hillard Heintze Team is selected. Mr. Heintze has played the lead role for the Hillard Heintze Team during every phase of the monitor selection process: he appears to have made all personnel decisions for the Hillard Heintze Team; he was the primary presenter during the Team’s April 2, 2013 interview and directed its responses to all subsequent inquiries from the Committee; he has drafted all correspondence the Hillard Heintze Team has sent to the Committee; and he has directly submitted several letters of reference to the Court under the process ordered by the Court to receive public comment. See Letter from Arnette Heintze to U.S. Dist. Judge Morgan (May 30, 2013) [ECF No. 264].
In contrast to the civil rights perspective within the leadership of the Sheppard Mullin Team, the Hillard Heintze Team’s leadership lacks this direct civil rights perspective in its leadership or elsewhere on the Team. Even more concerning, Hillard Heintze decisions already have indicated they may not have a full understanding of how critical this perspective is. As initially composed, the Hilliard Heintze Team included Scott Greenwood, a civil rights attorney with police reform experience. Hillard Heintze proposal [ECF No. 269] at 22. However, Mr. Heintze removed Mr. Greenwood from the team, as he did Chief Thomas Streicher, who has experience implementing a police reform agreement in Cincinnati. See Letter from Arnette
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 12 of 20

Heintze to Monitor Selection Committee (March 1, 2013) [attached as Exhibit R]. When asked whether he intended to replace Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Streicher with individuals with civil rights expertise, Mr. Heintze told the Committee that he did not see the need to replace them. See Tr. of Apr. 2, 2013 Committee meeting [ECF No. 271] at 48-49.
The Hillard Heintze Team also lacks monitoring experience. The Team’s Deputy Monitors, Chief Kathleen M. O’Toole and Chief Robert L. Davis are able subject matter experts. However, they would be acting at the direction of Mr. Heintze, rather than directing the Team themselves, and have neither monitoring nor direct civil rights experience (although since February 2013 Chief O’Toole has been gaining monitoring experience as monitor of the approximately 55-person East Haven, Conn., Police Department).
After the United States alerted Hillard Heintze of its concerns regarding the Team’s dearth of relevant monitoring and civil rights experience, Hillard Heintze attempted to improve on these deficiencies by adding to the Team Michael Bromwich, a former monitor and lawyer in private practice, and Michael Gennaco, a former federal civil rights prosecutor and current independent auditor of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.7 Letter from Arnette Heintze to Monitor Selection Committee (April 25, 2013) [attached as Exhibit S]. While both bring considerable expertise, the Parties have received conflicting information about the nature and duration of their roles with this project. With respect to Mr. Bromwich, the April 25 letter from Mr. Heintze did not define the role that he would play. When the Parties spoke to Mr. Bromwich about his role, he informed the Parties that he envisioned that he would assist in the drafting of the monitoring plan, but did not provide any specifics of his commitment beyond that. Mr. Heintze initially described the contribution of Mr. Bromwich as “maybe a couple of days a

7

Both Mr. Bromwich and Mr. Gennaco were the primary monitors of other monitoring team candidates. See

Proposal, The Bromwich Group, and Proposal, OIR Group, available at http://new.nola.gov/purchasing/consent-

decree. While these teams made the five-team short list, they were not selected. As such, the public has not had an

opportunity to vet them to the same extent as the members of the Sheppard Mullin and Hillard Heintze teams.

12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 13 of 20

month or a couple of meetings per month,” but in a later communication, described a more significant role for Mr. Bromwich. 8 In any case, even if Mr. Bromwich or Mr. Gennaco were to play a significant role on the Hillard Heintze Team, the Team still would be directed by leaders with neither monitoring nor civil rights experience.
B. Sheppard Mullin’s Police Practice and Academic Experts Provide a Breadth and Depth of Experience Unmatched on Other Teams.
The need for highly qualified police practice experts in monitoring a police reform decree is plain. Perhaps less obvious but equally critical is expertise studying policing, including data gathering and analysis. Of all the teams that submitted a proposal to monitor this Decree, the Sheppard Mullin Team has the deepest skill and broadest diversity of experience among its police and academic experts.
The Sheppard Mullin Team includes preeminent police practice academics who will provide an analytical and evidence-based perspective that is necessary for the successful execution of many of the Monitor’s duties under the Decree, including developing and implementing methodologies for audits and reviews, and the design and implementation of outcome measures to evaluate compliance. The academic experts on the Sheppard Mullin Team include Dr. Geoff Alpert, arguably the preeminent police practices-focused academic expert in the entire nation. In addition, Dr. Alpert has extensively researched the use of outcome measures in police work, and has himself developed outcome measures that are specifically designed to accurately measure the lawfulness and effectiveness of police action. That experience will prove crucial to the fundamental monitoring responsibility of measuring NOPD’s compliance with the Decree. See Decree ¶¶ 448-49. Dr. Alejandro del Carmen is another widely-respected expert

8

See Letter from Arnette Heintze to Sharonda Williams and Christy Lopez, (May 10, 2013) [attached as

Exhibit T]. It is not clear that Mr. Bromwich agreed to this increased role, as the role of another potential member

of that team was described in equal detail, even though that member told the Parties that he had not been advised by

Mr. Heintze what the level of his involvement would be. Email from Dennis Nowicki to Committee re: “Monitor

Team Composition” (May 10, 2013) [attached as Exhibit U; non-relevant contact information redacted].

13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 14 of 20
who has studied community dynamics related to crime and whose recent work has focused on racial profiling. That experience is also specifically needed for successful implementation of the Decree. See, e.g., Decree ¶¶ 125, 127, 142, 223-33.
Sheppard Mullin’s three law enforcement experts and Deputy Monitor Nowicki have explicit and specific expertise in each of the areas covered by the Decree. Each expert is a national leader in police practices, and each has a broad, experience-based expertise with all aspects of policing covered by the Decree. For example, every one of Sheppard’s law enforcement experts has expertise in successful secondary employment systems; each has been at the forefront of policing, including devising and putting into place strategies for policing diverse communities; and all have experience devising and implementing early warning systems (“EWS”). See April 15, 2013 Tr. at 26-30; April 3, 2013 Tr. at 123, 127-30 (discussion of experience with secondary employment systems); id. at 109-12 (discussion of experience implementing EWS); Nowicki, Bowman, McNeilly and Viverette Resumes. II. The Sheppard Mullin Team Is, and Will Be Viewed as, Fair and Independent
To be successful, a monitoring team must accurately and objectively evaluate NOPD’s implementation of the Decree and must have credibility with the Court and the community so that its evaluations are accepted. Therefore, the Monitor must be independent from the entity being monitored. The Monitor must be able to make difficult calls, such as whether uses of force or stops and searches were reasonable, and whether the findings of misconduct investigations are supported by the evidence. These calls must be accurate, objective, and credible. In addition, pursuant to this Decree, the Monitor has numerous, concrete community outreach obligations to ensure that a diverse range of community members are included as real participants in the reform process. See, e.g., Decree ¶¶ 231, 461. The Monitor must be able to identify community concerns; measure change in the community’s view of NOPD over time; and facilitate enduring
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 15 of 20

partnerships between the community and NOPD so that, even after the Decree’s termination, NOPD has the capacity to continue to engage community members on its own, and sustain lawful and effective policing. Completing these tasks will prove difficult if the Monitor lacks the community’s confidence. For these and other reasons, it is critical that the monitoring team has the requisite independence and credibility to successfully monitor this Decree. Indeed, one of the fundamental goals of this Decree is to restore the community’s trust in NOPD. After decades of division between NOPD and the community, as well as a long history of failed promises of reform, the Decree can only repair that trust if the community believes that the Monitor is independent and that its findings are trustworthy.
The Sheppard Mullin Team is the more credible monitoring team in each of these respects. A broad spectrum of New Orleans residents has overwhelmingly voiced support for the Sheppard Mullin Team. The President of the New Orleans branch of the NAACP stated on behalf of that organization that the Sheppard Mullin Team is the “superior choice.” See Apr. 15, 2013 Tr. at 130-32 (comments of Mr. Danatus King). Approaching the monitor selection decision from a different vantage point, another commenter stated that, although he does not usually agree with the NAACP and has no issue with Mayor Landrieu, it was clear that the Sheppard Mullin Team was the right choice to monitor NOPD. See id. at 146-50. Community United for Change, one of the organizations that attempted to intervene in this case, also spoke in favor of the Sheppard Mullin Team at the Committee meeting, and provided a letter of support for the Team. See id. at 135-138; Letter from W.C. Johnson et al., Community United for Change, to U.S. Dist. Judge Morgan (May 12, 2013) [ECF No. 240].9

9

While the City has raised concerns regarding the independence of some members of the Sheppard Mullin

Team, specifically Mr. Aronie and Chief Bowman, these concerns are at odds with the City’s support for other

monitors and team members who have the same or even greater involvement with DOJ. The City has expressed

concern that, more than a decade ago, current attorney for the United States Christy Lopez and Mr. Aronie were

both part of the same unsuccessful proposal to serve as monitor of the Prince George’s County, Md., Police

15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 16 of 20
In contrast to the broad support the Sheppard Mullin Team has received, there has been little community support for the Hillard Heintze Team, with the overwhelming majority of local voices weighing in against the Team. Significantly, among the most consistent critiques is a concern that the Hillard Heintze Team will not be perceived as independent from the City and NOPD. See, e.g., Letter from William P. Quigley, Community United for Change, to U.S. Dist. Judge Morgan (Apr. 15, 2013) [ECF No. 224] (doubting Team’s independence and expressing view that Hillard Heintze represents “the one applicant which was most vehemently objected to by community observers of the process”). Among the reasons cited by the community in opposing the Hillard Heintze Team is its selection of Rev. Charles Southhall and Professor Peter Scharf as team members. It is clear from the community comments voiced at monitor selection meetings and submitted to the Court that members of the community question Rev. Southhall’s ability to vigorously monitor the Decree given his ties to Mayor Mitch Landrieu. See, e.g., Andrew Vanacore, Community Group Pans Landrieu Administration's Choice to Monitor NOPD Reforms in Consent Decree, The Times Picayune, Apr. 15, 2013 [attached as Exhibit V]; Apr. 15, 2013 Tr. at 112-14, 138. The community has similar concerns about Mr. Scharf, including his public statements expressing doubt about the need for the Decree. See, e.g., Quigley Letter, supra at 3. Concerns have also been raised about Superintendent Hillard’s commitment to constitutional policing, both from long-time New Orleans’ advocates for police reform, and from
Department. The City has expressed no concern, however, that Superintendent Hillard was also a part of that same team. Similarly, while the City has expressed concern that Chief Bowman served as an expert during the United States’ investigation of NOPD, it actively supports Dr. Ellen Scrivner as a member of the Hillard Heintze Team, even though she also was an expert for the United States during its investigation of NOPD and was, at the time, a DOJ employee. See Scrivner Resume, Hillard Heintze Proposal [ECF No. 269-1] at *59. Nor has the City expressed any concerns about other members of the Hillard Heintze Team who have past or current relationships with the United States, including Mr. Bromwich; Mr. Gennaco, a former Civil Rights Division prosecutor; or Chief O’Toole, who was recently selected by the United States to monitor another consent decree. Moreover, the City pressed for recent COPS Director Barney Melekian as a possible lead monitor, despite his recent DOJ employment during which he was “personally and substantially” involved in the development of both the United States’ findings and the Decree, barring him by criminal law from serving as monitor. See 18 U.S.C. § 207.
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 17 of 20

individuals who have knowledge of Superintendent Hillard’s tenure as Superintendent of Chicago PD.10
The United States understands that no monitoring group will have the support of every member of the community, and that choosing a monitor should not be based on which team enjoys the support of the broadest (or loudest) swath of the community at the time of selection. Nonetheless, the fact that individuals with diverse perspectives in New Orleans have voiced strong opposition and distrust of the Hillard Heintze Team casts doubt upon its capacity to be effective.
Further, the United States believes that there is merit to the community’s doubts about the Hillard Heintze Team’s independence and commitment to meaningful reform, and believes that the need for these qualities is especially resonant here, where Mayor Landrieu has led the City’s recent efforts to avoid its obligations under the Decree. III. The Sheppard Mullin Team is Cost Effective for the City
The United States is very mindful of cost in recommending the Sheppard Mullin Team. At the outset however, it is critical to note that the cost of reform, including a Monitor, exists only because of the City’s failure, going back decades, to ensure that its police department respects the civil rights of its own people. The City’s persistent objection to the Decree on the basis of its cost is fundamentally an erroneous assertion that the City need not comply with the Constitution or ensure safe and effective policing if doing so costs money. The City’s complaints about the cost of police reform also disregard the very real, if less quantifiable, cost of police abuse on the lives and livelihoods of New Orleans residents. Given the City’s

10

See, e.g., Letter from Mary Howell re: Monitor Selection Process (Apr. 25, 2013) [ECF No. 225]; Andrew

Vanacore, Past Torture Stirs Debate, The Advocate, June 3, 2013 (quoting Locke Bowman, director of the

MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern Law School as saying, “You’re looking for a person who is fearless about

taking on corruption and making things right. Nobody would say that Terry Hillard fits that bill. Nobody would.

He’s obviously the wrong guy for the job.”) [attached as Exhibit W].

17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 18 of 20

unquestionable obligation to ensure that NOPD polices lawfully, and the importance of the civil rights at stake, the selection of a monitor must ultimately depend on which team will most effectively help end NOPD’s longstanding pattern of violating constitutional rights.
In any event, the Sheppard Mullin Team not only is the most qualified, but it also is the most cost effective for the City. Its four-year cost estimate is higher than Hillard Heintze’s.11 But any consideration of costs must center around an evaluation of value. Mr. Aronie has put together a small and dynamic team of experts from all relevant fields that is unparalleled in its experience and that can proficiently and efficiently monitor all aspects of the Decree. The Hillard Heintze proposal, on the other hand, is not carefully tailored to the needs of the Decree and includes such questionable costs as having every member of its 22-person Team review every policy, an unnecessary duplication of effort and cost. See Hillard Heintze Proposal at 17. There is additional cause to be concerned that Hillard Heintze’s cost proposal is not fully thought out. For example, when Hillard Heintze initially modified its Team to include Mr. Gennaco and Mr. Bromwich, it did not modify its cost proposal at all. See Letter from Arnette Heintze to Sharonda Williams and Christy Lopez (April 25, 2013), supra. That the addition of these two relatively expensive members (Mr. Bromwich’s hourly rate is $495), without the removal of others, did not alter the Team’s cost estimate is, in the view of the United States, an indication either that the estimate is unrealistic, or that these two men were not expected to play meaningful roles.12 When evaluating cost, the City and the Court should consider not only what the City is paying the monitor, but what the City is getting for its money.

11

Hillard Heintze’s four-year capped cost estimate is $7,007,542. Sheppard Mullin’s four-year cost estimate

is $7,880,786, with a cap of $8,900,000. Hillard Heintze claimed in an unsolicited letter to the Committee that its

cost proposal includes more hours and more dedicated time in New Orleans than Sheppard Mullin’s proposal. See

Letter from Arnette Heintze to Danny Cazenave and Christy Lopez (Apr.14, 2013) [attached as Exhibit X].

Sheppard Mullin submitted a letter that effectively refuted those claims. See Letter from Jonathan Aronie to

Cazenave and Lopez (Apr. 24, 2013) supra.

12

At the request of the Parties, Mr. Gennaco and Mr. Bromwich were given greater roles in Hillard Heintze’s

revised proposal. Their addition in this more meaningful capacity increased Hillard Heintze’s cost estimate from

18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 19 of 20
In addition, the selection of an experienced, independent monitor represents a cost savings that could dwarf the difference in these four-year cost proposals. Earning release from the Decree—and concluding the monitorship—in a timely fashion will confer the greatest cost savings for the City.
CONCLUSION The end goal of the Consent Decree is to ensure that NOPD fully complies with the Constitution and federal law, and to ensure that constitutional policing is sustained. Ideally, the United States and the City would have reached agreement on a monitor, but selecting a monitor who will effectively and efficiently guide implementation of the Decree must be of paramount importance. Through scores of hours of discussion, the Parties sought to reach compromise, but were unable to agree on team leadership. Further, none of the many alternatives considered approached the strength of the Sheppard Mullin Team. To provide the greatest assurance that the Consent Decree will successfully be implemented, the United States respectfully requests that the Court select the Sheppard Mullin Team as Consent Decree Monitor.
$7,007542 to $7,508,154. See Letter from Arnette Heintze to Sharonda Williams and Christy Lopez (May 10, 2013), supra. The tentative team to which this revised cost proposal pertained was rejected during negotiations and the cost proposal is thus irrelevant. It remains unclear what the proposed cost of the Hillard Heintze Team, with the addition of Mr. Gennaco and Mr. Bromwich playing meaningful roles, actually would be.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 277 Filed 06/14/13 Page 20 of 20

DANA J. BOENTE Acting United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
STEPHEN C. PARKER (TN 12747) Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. (DC 980360) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section
CHRISTY E. LOPEZ (DC 473612) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
EMILY A. GUNSTON (T.A.) (CA 218035) ____/s/ Jude Volek_______________ JUDE VOLEK (NY 10041483) Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 353-1077 Email: jude.volek@usdoj.gov

20

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 129
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

12 .. 1924 c .
SECt E MAG. 2

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE REGARDING THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 129

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

A. Background ............................................................................................................. 1

B. General Provisions ................................. ................................................................. 2

C. Definitions/Abbreviations....................................................................................... 4

II. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY ...... ..... ........................ ................. ............... 11

A. Policy Development, Review> and Implementation ............................................. 11

B. Training on Revised Policies, Procedures, and Practices ..................................... 14

III. USE OF FORCE ................................................................................................................ 14

A. Use ofForce Principles ......................................................................................... 14

B. General Use of Force Policy ................................................................................. 15

C. Vehicle Pursuits .................................................................................................... 16

D. Use ofFirearms..................................................................................................... 16

E. Use of Canines ...................................................................................................... 17

F. Electronic Control Weapons ................................................................................. 20

G. Oleoresin Capsicwn Spray.................................................................................... 22

H. SWAT Teams........................................................................................................ 22

I.

Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report ..................................... 23

J. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations .............................................................. 24

K. Force Investigation Team ..................................................................................... 28

L. Use of Force Review Board.................................................................................. 32

M. Use of Force Training ........................................................................................... 33

IV. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM .................................................................................... 34

A. Crisis Intervention Planning Committee............................................................... 35

B. Program Development .......................................................................................... 35

C. CIT and First Responder Training ........................................................................ 36

D. Maintenance of CIT Program ............................................................................... 37

V. STOPS> SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS ............................................................................ 38

A. Investigatory Stops and Detentions ...................................................................... 38

B. Searches ................................................................. ............................................... 38

C. Arrests ................................................................................................................... 40

D. Stop and Search Data Collection and Review ...................................................... 42

E. First Amendment Right to Observe and Record Officer Conduct........................ 44

F. Stop, Search, and Arrest Training......................................................................... 45

VI. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS ................................................................................. 46

- --- -----· ··- ······ · · - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- --·--·- -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 129
A. Interrogation Restrictions and Equipment ............ ................................................ 46 B. Detective Selection and Interrogation Training .................................................... 47 VII. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS ........................................ ................ ............................. ..... 47 VIII. BIAS-FREE POLICING.................................................................................................... 48 A. Bias-Free Policing Training.................................................................................. 48 B. Ensuring Bias-Free Policing ................ ................ ................................................ . 49 C. Language Assistance............................................. ................................................ 51 IX. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS............................................................................. 54 A. Sexual Assault....................................................................................................... 54 B. Domestic Violence................................................................................................ 58 X. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT...................................................................................... 60 A. Community and Problem Oriented Policing......................................................... 60 B. Biennial Community Survey................................................................................. 62 XI. RECRUITMENT ... .................... ......... ......... ... ..... ......................... ... ........ ..... ... .......... ........ 63 A. Comprehensive Recruitment Program................. ................................................. 63
XII. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING .................................................................. 65 A. Training Coordination and Planning..................................................................... 65
B. Curriculum Development...................................................................................... 67 C. Instructor Selection ............................................................................................... 68 D. Training Evaluation .............................................................................................. 69 E. Recruit Training Academy.................................................................................... 69 F. Field Training Program......................................................................................... 71 G. In-Service Training ............................................................................................... 72 H. Training Records ................................................................................................... 73 XIII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT...................................................................... 73 A. Department-Wide Health and Wellness Program................................................. 73 XIV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS ............................................ 75 A. Performance Evaluations ...................................................................................... 75 B. Promotions ............................ ......................................... ...................................... . 76 XV. SUPERVISION.................................................................................................................. 77 A. Duties of Supervisors ............................................................................................ 77 B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training............................................................ 79 C. Early Warning System .......................................................................................... 80 D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities......................................... 83 XVI. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM...................................................................... 84 A. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office....................................................... 85
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 4 of 129

B. Coordinating Office Responsibilities.................................................................... 86

C. Secondary Employment Compensation................................................................ 88

D. Limitations on Secondary Employment Work ..................................................... 88

E. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities .................... ........................ 92

F. Secondary Employment Supervision.................................................................... 92

XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION........................................................................................................... 94

A. Reporting Misconduct........................................................................................... 94

B. Response to futernally Discovered Infractions ..................................................... 94

C. Preventing Retaliation........................................................................................... 95

D. Staffing, Selection, and Training Requirements ............................................... .... 95

E. Complaint Information.......................................................................................... 96

F. Complaint Intake, Classification, Assignment, and Tracking .............................. 97

G. Investigation Timeframe ..................................................................................... 100

H. Collection ofEvidence.............................................................. .......................... 101

I.

Analysis of Evidence .......................................................................................... 102

J. Integrity oflnvestigative File and Evidence....................................................... 103

K. Communication with Complainant..................................................................... 104

L. Discipline Process and Transparency ................................................................. 104

M. Annual Report ........................................................................... .......................... 105

XVIII. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT ..................................................................... 105

A. Data Collection and Public Reporting ................................................................ 105

B. United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group ........................... 106

C. District Community Outreach Programs and Meetings...................................... 106

D. Police-Community Advisory Board ................................................................... 107

E. Community-Based Restorative Justice Project................................................... 108

F. Office ofthe Independent Police Monitor ..... ........... .......... .. ............ .............. .. .. 108

XIX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.................................... 108

A. Role of the Monitor............................................................................................. 108

B. Compliance Reviews and Audits ........................................................................ 109

C. Outcome Assessments ........................................................................................ 109

D. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology........................................................ 112

E. Review of Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations .................................... 113

F. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance ..... ....... ....... .................... 113

G. Comprehensive Re-Assessment.......................................................................... 114

H. Monitor Reports .............................:.................................................................... 114

lll

- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - -- ·--··----·-···· ,_ .. ' .,
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 5 of 129 L Coordination with IPM ....................................................................................... 115 J. Communication between Monitor, Parties, and Public ...................................... 115 K. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts oflnterest..................... 115 L. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit..................................................... 116 M. Implementation Assessment and Report. ............................................................ 116 N. Access and Confidentiality ................................................................................. 117 0. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor ...................................................... 118 P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement .............. 120 Q. Termination of the Agreement............................................................................ 121
iv

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 6 of 129
The City ofNew Orleans ("City"), including the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD" or "Department"), and the United States ofAmerica (collectively, "the Parties") enter into this agreement ("Agreement") with the goal ofensuring that police services are delivered to the people ofNew Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. The Parties have a shared recognition that the ability of a police department to protect the community it serves is only as strong as the relationship it has with that community. Public safety, constitutional policing, and the community's trust in its police force are thus interdependent. The full and sustained implementation of this Agreement is intended to protect the constitutional rights ofall members ofthe community, improve the safety and security ofthe people ofNew Orleans, and increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.
To achieve these goals, NOPD agrees to fundamentally change the way it polices throughout the New Orleans Community. This Agreement thus requires the City and the Department to implement new policies, training, and practices throughout the Department, including in the areas of: use of force; stops, searches, seizures, and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; discriminatory policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct-complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication.
Noting tlie general principle that settlements are to be encouraged, particularly settlements between goverrunent entities, and having considered the terms ofthe measures set forth herein, and that the Defendant agrees to resolve the United States' claims without resort to adversariallitigation, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered in this matter pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
I. INTRODUCTION A. Background
In May 2010, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") formally notified the City
that it was initiating an investigation ofthe New Orleans Police Department for an alleged pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 C'Section 14141"); the anti-discrimination provisions ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 7 of 129
("Safe Streets Act"); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI").
As part of its investigation, DOJ, in conjunction with its police-practices consultants, conducted a detailed fact-finding review, including numerous tours ofNOPD facilities; interviews with New Orleans officials, NOPD command staff, supervisors, and police officers; review ofmore than 36,000 pages ofdocuments; and meetings with residents, community groups, and other stakeholders within the City. In addition, DOJ participated in detailed exit interviews between its police-practices consultants and NOPD officials following each investigatory tour.
DOJ issued a written report of its findings ("Report") on March 16, 2011. The Report documents DOJ's finding of a number of patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct and details DOJ's concerns about a number ofNOPD policies and practices.
DOJ's investigation was conducted with the full cooperation ofthe City and NOPD. This
Agreement is the product ofa cooperative effort built on the Parties' mutual commitment to constitutional policing. The Parties acknowledge the many NOPD officers who perform their difficult jobs diligently and with integrity.
B. General Provisions 1. This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority granted to DOJ under Section
14141, the Safe Streets Act, and Title VI to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law. 2. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to undermine the lawful authority ofNOPD police . officers to use reasonable and necessary force, effect arrests, conduct searches or make seizures,
or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations to the people of New Orleans in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Louisiana. 3. 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 municipal law including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor is the City's entry into this Agreement an admission by the City, NOPD, or any officer or employee ofeither entity, that they have engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise improper activities or conduct.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 8 of 129
4. This Court has jurisdiction over 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 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the Defendant is located in and the claims arose in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 5. The Parties enter into this Agreement 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 the expeditious implementation of corrective measures, promotes the use ofthe best available policing practices and procedures, and avoids the diversion offederal and City resources to adversarial actions by the Parties. 6. This Agreement resolves all claims in the United States' Complaint filed in this case. This Agreement also constitutes a full and complete settlement of any and all civil claims the United States may have as of the Effective Date against the City and its officers, employees, or agents, regarding any alleged pattern or practice of conduct by New Orleans police officers in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities. 7. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement ofthe 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. 8. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting, investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations ofNOPD or any aspect thereof, the City agrees to ensure these functions and entities are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and shall incorporate the terms of this Agreement into the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency. 9. 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. Accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. 10. In the event of any public-records request, requesting drafts of this Agreement or communications among the Parties leading to this Agreement, the Court will maintain continuing
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 9 of 129
jurisdiction over any such request. Further, the Parties may assert in any action, motion, · subpoena, or request for disclosure of information the ongoing applicability of a settlement privilege to all such drafts or communications among the Parties leading to this Agreement. 11. This Agreement is not intended to limit or expand the right ofany person or organization to seek relief against the City, NOPD, or any officer or employee thereof, for their conduct or the conduct ofNOPD officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims by third parties, including those arising from city, state, or federal law. This Agreement does not expand, nor will it be construed to expand, access to any City, NOPD, or DOJ documents, except as expressly provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other than DOJ, the Defendant, and the Monitor.
12. The City is responsible for providing necessary support and resources to NOPD to enable NOPD to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 13. The Defendant, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and successors, is enjoined from engaging in conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the laws ofthe United States. C. Definitions/Abbreviations 14. The following terms and definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
a) "Active resistance" means a subject attempts to attack or does attack an officer; exhibits aggressive behavior (e.g., lunging toward the officer, striking the officer with hands, fists, kicks or any instrument that may be perceived as a weapon such as knife or stick); or exhibits defensive resistance (e.g., attempts to leave the scene, flee, hide from detection, or pull away from the officer's grasp). Verbal statements, bracing, or tensing alone do not constitute active resistance. b) "Apprehension" means the arrest, capture, or taking into custody ofa person. c) "Arrest" is the taking of one person into custody by another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint ofthe person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission ofthe person arrested to the custody ofthe one arresting him. An arrest is a restraint of greater scope or duration than an investigatory stop or detention. An arrest is lawful when supported by probable cause. d) "AVL" means "Automatic Vehicle Locator," a device that automatically tracks the geographic position of a vehicle and transmits that information to a receiver.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 10 of 129
e) "Bilingual staff' means a staff person who has demonstrated and verified proficiency, pursuant to generally accepted objective criteria, in both spoken English and at least one other language as authorized by NOPD. f) "Bite ratio" means the number ofcanine apprehensions that result in a bite, divided by the number ofcanine apprehensions. Accidental and/or unintentional bites shall be included in the numerator. g) "Body cavity search" means any visual or physical inspection of a person's genital or anal region with or without any physical contact with or intrusion into a body cavity. h) "Canine apprehension" means any time a canine is deployed and plays a clear and welldocumented role in the capture ofa person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene ofan arrest shall not count as a canine apprehension. i) "Canine deployment" means any situation, except one involving an on-leash article search only, in which a canine is brought to the scene and used in an attempt to locate or apprehend a suspect, whether or not a suspect actually is located or apprehended. j) "CCMS" means Criminal Case Management System. k) "Civilian Employee" means any non-sworn personnel employed by NOPD, on either a temporary or permanent basis, in either a paid or unpaid capacity. 1) "City" means the City of New Orleans, including its agents, officers, and employees. m) "CIT' means Crisis Intervention Team. n) "Clearance" means an arrest leading to prosecution for an offense is made or an offense is cleared by exception. Offenses cleared by exception must be supported by all of the following factors: 1) the identity of the offender is known; 2) probable cause exists to support arrest and prosecution of the offender; and 3) the exact location of the offender is known, but something prevents the immediate arrest, such as the death ofthe offender, including suicide, or the offender is currently in custody at a correctional facility in another jurisdiction. o) "Complainant" means any person, including an NOPD officer or employee, who makes a complaint against NOPD or an officer or employee ofNOPD. p) "Complaint" means any complaint regarding NOPD services, policy or procedure, any claim for damages, or any criminal matter that alleges possible misconduct by an NOPD officer or employee. For purposes ofthis Agreement, the term "complaint" does not include
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 11 of 129
any allegation of employment discrimination. q) "Court" means the United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana presiding over this case. r) "Critical firearm discharge" means a discharge of a firearm by an NOPD officer, including discharges where no person or animal is struck. Range and training firings, destruction of animals, and off-duty hunting discharges where no person is struck are not critical firearms discharges. s) "Custodial Interrogation" means words or actions on the part of an officer that the officer knows or should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, after a person has been taken into custody. t) "DA" means the Orleans Parish District Attorney' s Office. u) "Demographic Category" means age, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. v) "Discipline" means a personnel action for violation of an established law, regulation, rule, or NOPD policy, including an admonishment, written reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal. w) "Discriminatory Policing" means selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law, including the selecting or rejecting ofparticular policing tactics or strategies based on membership in a demographic category specified in this Agreement. Discriminatory policing does not include using race, ethnicity, or any other status in any reliable and.recent suspect-specific description. x) "District" means one of the eight police service areas ofNOPD located throughout New Orleans that is led through the chain of command by a District Commander. y) "DOJ" means the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and its agents and employees. z) "DVU" means Domestic Violence Unit. aa) "ECW'' means Electronic Control Weapon, a weapon designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and overrides the subject's voluntary motor responses. bb) "ECW application" means the contact and delivery of electrical impulse to a subject with an Electronic Control Weapon.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 12 of 129
cc) "Effective Date" means the day this Agreement is entered by the Court. dd) "EWS" means Early Warning System. ee) "FBI" means the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation. fl) "Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, carbine, or machine gun, as well as any instrument capable of discharging a bullet or shot. gg) "FIT' means Force Investigation Team, the NOPD unit tasked with conducting investigations of serious uses offorce; uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer; uses of force by NOPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; and uses of force reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant, the Superintendant's designee, or PIB. FIT shall also investigate all instances where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD. hh) "Force Statement" means a written statement documenting a use of force as required by this Agreement. ii) "FTO" means Field Training Officer. jj) "IACP" means International Association ofChiefs ofPolice. kk) "ICO" means Integrity Control Officer. 11) "Implement" or "implementation" means the development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of all relevant personnel, and the consistent and verified performance ofthat policy or procedure in actual practice. mm) "Including" means "including, but not limited to." nn) "Interpretation" means the act of listening to a communication in one language (source language) and orally converting it into another language (target language), while retaining the same meaning. oo) "Interview" means questioning for the purpose of eliciting facts or information. pp) "Investigatory stop" or "investigatory detention" means a temporary restraint where the subject of the stop or detention reasonably believes that s/he is not free to leave. An investigatory stop or detention may be a pedestrian, vehicle, or bicycle stop. qq) "IPM" means the Independent Police Monitor. rr) "Less-lethal force" means force employed that is neither likely nor intended to cause death or serious injury. ss) "Less-lethal weapon" means any apprehension or restraint tool that, when used as
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 13 of 129
designed and intended, is less likely to cause death or serious injury than a conventional lethal weapon (e.g., firearm). tt) "Lethal force" means any use offorce likely to cause death or serious physical injury, (e.g., the use ofa firearm, neck hold, or strike to the head, neck, or throat with a hard object). uu) "LEP" means Limited English Proficient, and refers to a person who does not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g., speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g., reading or writing). vv) "LGBT" means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. ww) "Major Special Events" include Mardi Gras; Jazz Fest; Essence Music Festival; French Quarter Festival; Voodoo Fest; college bowl and college championship events; professional sporting events; and other events as designated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, the City Attorney, City Council, or the Superintendent of Police as a "Major Special Event." xx) "MCTU" means Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit. yy) "Monitor" means a person or team of people who shall be selected to monitor and report on implementation of this Agreement. zz) ''Neck hold" means one of the following types of holds: (1) arm-bar control hold, a hold that inhibits breathing by compression of the airway in the neck; (2) carotid restraint hold, a hold that inhibits blood flow by compression ofthe blood vessels in the neck; (3) a lateral vascular neck constraint; or (4) a hold with a knee or other object to the back of a prone subject's neck. A neck hold shall be considered lethal force. aaa) "NOFJC" means the New Orleans Family Justice Center. bbb) "Non-disciplinary corrective action" means action other than discipline taken by an NOPD supervisor to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her perfonnance. ccc) "NOPD" means the New Orleans Police Department and its agents, officers, supervisors, and employees (both sworn and unsworn). ddd) "NOPD unit" means any designated organization of officers within NOPD, including districts and specialized units. eee) "NOPDAI" means NOPD Authorized Interpreter, a bilingual NOPD employee, who has
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 14 of 129
been authorized to interpret for others in certain situations, such as interviews, interrogations, or taking and responding to citizen complaints. fff) "NOPDAI List" means a list ofNOPD personnel who are bilingual and are authorized to act as volunteer interpreters. ggg) "Passive Resistance" means behavior that is unresponsive to police verbal communication or direction (e.g., ignoring or disregarding police attempts at verbal communication or control; going limp; or failing to physically respond or move) and verbal resistance (e.g., verbally rejecting police verbal communication or direction; telling the officer that he or she will not comply with police directio~ to leave alone, or not bother him or her). Bracing, tensing, linking arms, or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into custody constitutes passive resistance. hhh) "PCAB" means Police-Community Advisory Board. iii) "Personnel" means NOPD officers and employees.
.ill) "PIB" means the Public Integrity Bureau, the NOPD unit charged with conducting
internal and administrative investigations ofNOPD officers and employees. kkk) "Police officer" or "officer" means any law enforcement agent employed by NOPD, including supervisors and cadets. lll) "Policies and Procedures" means written regulations or directives, regardless of the name ofthe regulation or directive, describing the duties, functions, and obligations ofNOPD officers and/or employees, and providing specific direction in how to fulfill those duties, functions, or obligations. mmm) "POST" means the Louisiana Police Officer Standards and Training Council. nnn) "Probable cause" means that the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time would justify a prudent person in believing that the suspect committed or was committing an offense. ooo) "Reasonable Force" means force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances and the minimum amount offorce necessary to effect an arrest or protect the officer or other person. ppp) "Reasonable suspicion" means articulable facts that, within the totality ofthe circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity has been or is about to be committed.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 15 of 129
qqq) "RSE" means Recurring Secondary Employment. m) "SART" means Sexual Assault Response Team. sss) "Seizure" or "detention" occurs when an officer's words or actions would convey to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave. ttt) "Serious physical injury" means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death; causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement; or causes impairment ofthe function of any bodily organ or limb. uuu) "Serious use of force" means: (1) all uses oflethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses offorce by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (7) all canine bites; (8) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless ofthe mode or duration ofthe application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (9) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject. vvv) "Service firearm" means any firearm issued to sworn personnel by the Department. www) "Shall" or "Agrees to" means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty. xxx) "Specialized unit" means a temporary or permanent organization ofofficers within NOPD, whose operational objectives are focused on a specific law enforcement purpose beyond general patrol or criminal investigations, and that require enhanced training on police tactics, strategies, or techniques. yyy) "Strip search" means any search ofan individual requiring the removal or rearrangement of some or all clothing to permit visual inspection ofthe suspect's groin/genital area, buttocks, female breasts, or undergarments covering these areas. zzz) "Superintendent" means the Superintendent ofNOPD. aaaa) "Supervisor" means a sworn NOPD employee at the rank ofsergeant or above (or
anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn NOPD personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers. bbbb) "Translation" means the replacement ofwritten text from one language (source language) with an equivalent written text in another language (target language).
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 16 of 129
ecce) "Use of force" means physical effort to compel compliance by an unwilling subject above unresisted handcuffing, including pointing a firearm at a person. A reportable use of force is any force above hand control or escort techniques applied for the purposes of handcuffing, or escort techniques that are not used as pressure point compliance techniques, do not result in injury or complaint of injury, and are not used to overcome resistance. dddd) "Use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer" means force that a reasonable and trained supervisor would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent circumstances ofthe use of force, such as the level of the force used as compared to the resistance encountered, or discrepancies in the use of force as described by the officer and the use of force as evidenced by any resulting injuries, witness statements, or other evidence. eeee) "Use of Force Report" means a written report documenting a supervisor's investigation of a use of force as required by this Agreement. fffl) "UFRB" means Use of Force Review Board. gggg) "USAO" means the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans. hhhh) "VAW" means violence against women. iiii) "Vehicle stop" means any instance where an NOPD officer directs a civilian operating a motor vehicle of any type to stop and the driver is detained for any length oftime.
II. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY
NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department's core values and priorities, and provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all NOPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Policy Development, Review, and Implementation 15. NOPD agrees to develop comprehensive and agency-wide policies and procedures that ensure consistency with, and full implementation of, this Agreement. Unless otherwise noted, NOPD agrees that all policies, procedures, and manuals shall be developed within 365 days of the Effective Date.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 17 of 129
16. NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall define terms clearly, comply with
applicable law and the requirements of this Agreement, and comport with best practices. 17. NOPD agrees to apply policies uniformly and hold officers accountable for complying with NOPD policy and procedure. 18. NOPD agrees to review each policy or procedure 365 days after it is implemented and annually thereafter, to ensure that the policy or procedure provides effective direction to NOPD personnel and remains consistent with the Agreement, best practices, and current law. NOPD also agrees to review and revise policies and procedures as necessary upon notice ofa significant policy deficiency during audits or reviews. NOPD agrees that Department-wide policies and procedures shall be collected in a Department-level policy and procedure manual, and unit-wide policies and procedures shall be collected in unit-level policy and procedure manuals. NOPD agrees to develop and implement policy and procedure manuals for, at a minimum, the following NOPD functions:
a) Field operations, including patrol, task forces, and special operations; b) Supervisory Procedural Manual; c) PIB, including case and records management, administrative investigations, confidential investigations, parallel criminal and administrative investigations, audits, and officer drug testing; d) Use of Force Reporting, Investigation, and Review, including both Supervisory and FIT investigations; e) Criminal investigations, including sub-units assigned to investigate homicides, sexual assaults, domestic violence, narcotics, vice, and illegal firearms; and f) Recruitment and Training, including Academy and In-Service training.
19. NOPD agrees that these manuals shall incorporate and otherwise be consistent with the
requirements of this Agreement. 20. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall set out a schedule for completing all policies, procedures, and manuals within 365 days ofthe Effective Date. 21. NOPD agrees to submit new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to: Use, Reporting, and Review ofForce; Crisis Intervention Team; Stop, Searches, and Arrest; Custodial Interrogations; Biased Policing; Community Engagement; Academy and In-service Training; Supervision; and Misconduct Investigations ("the specified provisions"), to the
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 18 of 129
Monitor and DOJ for review and comment prior to publication and implementation. If the Monitor or DOJ object that the proposed new or revised policy, procedure, or manual does not incorporate the requirements ofthis Agreement, or is inconsistent with this Agreement or the law, it shall note this objection in writing to all parties within 15 business days of the receipt of the policy from NOPD. If neither the Monitor nor DOJ object to the new or revised policy, procedure, or manual, NOPD agrees to implement it within 30 days of it being provided to DOJ and the Monitor. 22. NOPD shall have 15 days to resolve any objections to the new or revised policies, procedures, and manuals implementing the specified provisions. If, after this 15-day period has run, DOJ maintains its objection, then the Monitor shall have an additional 15 days to resolve the objection. If either party disagrees with the Monitor's resolution of the objection, either Party may ask the Court to resolve the matter. The Monitor shall determine whether in some instances an additional amount of time is necessary to ensure full and proper review of policies. Factors to consider in making this determination include: 1) complexity of the policy; 2) extent of disagreement regarding policy; 3) number ofpolicies provided simultaneously; and 4) extraordinary circumstances delaying review by DOJ or the Monitor. In determining whether these factors warrant additional time for review, the Monitor shall fully consider the importance of prompt implementation of policies, and shall allow additional time for policy review only where it is clear that additional time is necessary to ensure full and proper review. Any extension to the above timelines by the Monitor shall also toll NOPD's deadline for policy completion. 23. For all other new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to this Agreement, NOPD agrees to provide the policy, procedure, or manual to DOJ and the Monitor for review and comment. Within 30 days of receipt, DOJ or the Monitor may notify NOPD of any concerns that it has regarding the policy's compliance with this Agreement or the law. If concerns are expressed, NOPD agrees to review the policy, procedure, or manual and modify as necessary to ensure full implementation of, and compliance with, this Agreement and the law. If DOJ or the Monitor believes that the policy, procedure, or manual remains inconsistent with this Agreement or the law, it may ask the Court to resolve the matter.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 19 of 129
B. Training on Revised Policies, Procedures, and Practices
24. Within 60 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide an opportunity for each officer and employee to learn about this Agreement and the responsibilities ofeach officer and employee pursuant to it. 25. Within 90 days ofissuing a policy or procedure pursuant to this Agreement, NOPD agrees to ensure that all relevant NOPD personnel have received and read their responsibilities pursuant to the policy or procedure, including the requirement that each officer or employee report violations ofpolicy; that supervisors ofall ranks be held accountable for identifying and responding to policy or procedure violations by personnel under their command; and that personnel be held accountable for policy and procedure violations. NOPD agrees to document that each relevant NOPD officer or other employee has received and read the policy. Training beyond roll call, or similar training, will be necessary for many new policies to ensure officers understand and can perfonn their duties pursuant to the policy. 26. Unless otherwise noted, the training required pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered within 365 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall set out a schedule for delivering all training required by this Agreement within 365 days ofthe Effective Date.
III. USE OF FORCE
NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to effect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and deescalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.
A. Use of Force Principles
27. Use offorce by NOPD officers, regardless ofthe type of force or weapon used, shall abide by the following requirements:
a) officers shall use advisements, warnings, and verbal persuasion, when possible, before resorting to force;
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 20 of 129
b) force shall be de-escalated immediately as resistance decreases; c) when feasible based on the circumstances, officers will use disengagement; area containment; surveillance; waiting out a subject; sununoning reinforcements; and/or calling in specialized units, in order to reduce the need for force and increase officer and civilian safety; d) officers shall allow individuals time to submit to arrest before force is used wherever possible; e) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit neck holds, except where lethal force is authorized; f) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit head strikes with a hard object, except where lethal force is authorized; g) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit using force against persons in handcuffs, except as objectively reasonable to prevent imminent bodily harm to the officer or another person or persons, or, as objectively reasonable, where physical removal is necessary to overcome passive resistance; h) NOPD shall explicitly prohibit the use of force above unresisted handcuffing to overcome passive resistance, except that physical removal is permitted as necessary and objectively reasonable; i) unholstering a firearm and pointing it at a person constitutes a use offorce, and shall accordingly be done only as objectively reasonable to accomplish a lawful police objective; j) officers shall not use force to attempt to effect compliance with a command that is unlawful. Any use of force by an officer to subdue an individual resisting arrest or detention is unreasonable when the initial arrest or detention ofthe individual was unlawful; k) immediately following a use of force, officers and, upon arrival, a supervisor shall inspect and observe subjects for injury or complaints of pain resulting from the use offorce, and immediately obtain any necessary medical care. This may require an officer to provide emergency first aid until professional medical care providers are on scene. B. General Use of Force Policy 28. NOPD agrees to develop and implement an overarching agency-wide use offorce policy that complies with applicable law and comports with best practices and current professional standards. The comprehensive use of force policy shall include all force techniques, technologies, and weapons, both lethal and less-lethal, that are available to NOPD officers,
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 21 of 129
including standard-issue weapons that are made available to all officers, and weapons that are made available only to specialized units. The comprehensive use of force policy shall clearly define and describe each force option and the circumstances under which use ofsuch force is appropriate. The general use of force policy will incorporate the use of force principles articulated above, and shall specify that the unreasonable use of force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. 29. In addition to a primary agency-wide use of force policy, NOPD agrees to develop and implement policies and protocols for each authorized weapon, including each ofthe types of force addressed below. No officer shall carry any weapon, or use force, that is not authorized by the Department. NOPD use of force policies shall include training and certification requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the authorized weapon. C. Vehicle Pursuits 30. NOPD agrees to prohibit vehicle pursuits, except where an officer obtains express supervisory approval, and the officer and supervisor have considered multiple factors and determined that the immediate danger to the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large. NOPD agrees to strictly prohibit the creation ofroadblocks (i.e., completely blocking the roadway with vehicles or any obstructions, with the exception of approved devices designed to demobilize the pursued vehicle's movement) during a vehicle pursuit, intentionally positioning oneselfin the path of the pursued vehicle, boxing in a violator with moving vehicles, and ramming a violator. 31. NOPD agrees to track and analyze vehicle pursuit, including the violation that prompted the pursuit; the officer(s) involved in the pursuit; the supervisor approving the pursuit; the outcome ofthe pursuit; any officer, suspect, or bystander injuries or deaths; property damage; and related criminal or civil legal actions. This data and analysis shall be included in the EWS and in NOPD's Use of Force Annual report. D. Use of Firearms 32. Officers shall not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition while on-duty. 33. All officers' firearms shall be filled with the capacity number of rounds while on-duty. 34. Critical firearm discharges by officers on- or off-duty shall be reported and investigated. 35. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from a moving vehicle or at a moving vehicle unless the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force, other than the vehicle itself, against
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 22 of 129
the officer or another person, and such action is necessary for selfdefense or to protect the other person; shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of, or reach inside, a moving vehicle; and, where possible, shall attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle before discharging their weapon. 36. Officers shall not draw or exhibit a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that a situation may escalate to the point where lethal force would be authorized. NOPD policy and training shall require and teach proper techniques for unholstering, drawing, or exhibiting a frrearm. 37. Officers shall be required at least once each year to successfully qualify with each firearm they are authorized to use or carry while on-duty. Officers who fail to qualify shall immediately relinquish NOPD issued firearms on which they failed to qualify. Those officers who still fail to qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination ofemployment. Critical firearms discharge related data and analysis shall be tracked in the EWS and in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report.
E. Use of Canines
38. DOJ acknowledges that NOPD has implemented an interim canine policy and has initiated significant improvements in its canine operations, including improvements in the quality and amount oftraining of canine teams, improvements in handler control of canines, personnel changes, and equipment procurement. Building on these steps, NOPD agrees to finalize and implement canine policies and procedures that comply with applicable law and the requirements ofthis Agreement, and that comport with best practices and current professional standards. 39. Canine handlers shall limit off-leash canine deployments, searches, and other instances where there is an increased risk of a canine bite to a suspect to instances in which the suspect is wanted for a violent felony or is reasonably suspected to be armed based upon individualized information specific to the subject. 40. A canine handler shall keep his or her canine within visual and auditory range during deployments at all times, except when a canine clears a threshold (e.g., rounding a comer, entering a room, ascending/descending a stairwell). 41. A canine supervisor shall be on call or on-duty at all times. A canine handler shall have approval from a canine supervisor {sergeant or higher) prior to deployment. If the handler is unable to contact a canine-unit supervisor, the handler shall seek approval from the watch
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 23 of 129
commander before the canine can be deployed. The approving supervisor shall not serve as a canine handler in the deployment. 42. Canine handlers shall issue three loud and clear warnings that a canine will be deployed and advise the suspect to surrender, unless such warnings impose an imminent threat of danger to the canine handler or other officers on scene. A canine handler shall allow a sufficient period of time between each warning to provide a suspect an opportunity to surrender. These warnings shall be given in either Spanish or Vietnamese if the suspect is reasonably believed to be a Latino or Vietnamese LEP individual. 43. Canine handlers will only allow their canines to engage a suspect by biting if the handler is in visual and auditory range of a suspect and the suspect•s actions pose a risk of imminent danger to the handler or others, risk of serious harm to the canine, or if the suspect is actively resisting (active resistance does not include concealment and refusal to surrender without more) or escaping. Handlers will not allow their canine to engage a suspect by biting if a lower level of force could reasonably be expected to control the suspect or allow for the apprehension. 44. In instances where a canine apprehends a suspect by biting, the handler will call the canine off at the first moment the canine can be safely released, taking into account that the average person will struggle if seized or confronted by a canine. 45. Whenever an individual sustains a canine bite, the handler or an on-scene officer shall immediately contact an NOPD dispatcher to request Emergency Medical Services response. If additional medical attention is required, the individual shall be transported to a medical facility for treatment. 46. For each canine apprehension, the involved handler, as well as all other officers who used or observed force, shall complete a Force Statement before the end of shift. In addition to the information that must be included in all Force Statements, a canine handler's Force Statement documenting a canine apprehension shall include the following: (1) whether there was contact between the canine and the subject, including contact with the subject's clothing; (2} documentation of the duration of the canine's contact with a subject; and (3) the approximate distance of the canine from the handler at time ofapprehension. In addition, in all apprehensions where there is canine contact, visible injury to a suspect, or a complaint ofinjury, an uninvolved supervisor shall be summoned to the scene for the purpose of completing a Use of Force Report consistent with investigative requirements established under this Agreement.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 24 of 129
47. An uninvolved canine supervisor shall evaluate each canine deployment for compliance with NOPD policy and state and federal law, and document this evaluation. 48. NOPD agrees to establish and maintain a canine certification program that ensures that: (1) canines and their handlers demonstrate control and proficiency in specific, widely accepted obedience and criminal apprehension exercises; (2) canines and their handlers receive a minimum of 16 hours of training every four weeks; (3) the trainer keeps detailed records of whether each canine team has met specific control criteria for each control exercise, and what remedial training was given ifa canine team was deficient in any area; and (4) the trainer reports all deficiencies to the unit supervisor. The program shall ensure that canines are certified annually by a nationally recognized trainer or organization, and that a canine is not deployed unless its certification is current. NOPD agrees to ensure that the certifying agency's standards are consistent with NOPD policy and standards. 49. NOPD agrees to employ the services of a qualified trainer who is capable ofproviding certified canine training, and who delivers such training and maintains training records in accordance with NOPD policy and this Agreement. 50. NOPD agrees to centrally record and track each canine team's training records, certification records, and health records, regardless ofwhether individual handlers also maintain records. 51. NOPD agrees to track canine deployments and canine apprehensions, and to calculate and track canine bite ratios on a monthly basis to assess its canine unit and individual canine teams. 52. NOPD agrees to include canine bite ratios as an element ofthe EWS, and to provide for the review, pursuant to the protocol for that system, ofthe performance ofany handler whose bite ratio exceeds 20 percent during a six-month period, or the entire unit ifthe unit's bite ratio exceeds that threshold, and to require interventions as appropriate. Canine data and analysis shall be included in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report. 53. NOPD agrees not to request or use the services of any canine, whether owned by NOPD or any other jurisdiction, without first ensuring that the canine is controllable and otherwise able to meet the standards required by NOPD policy.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 25 of 129
F. Electronic Control Weapons 54. Officers shall use ECWs only when such force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from physical harm, and other less intrusive means would be ineffective. Officers shall be authorized to use ECWs to control a violent suspect when attempts to subdue the suspect by other tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective and there is a reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach the suspect within contact range. 55. Unless doing so would place any person at risk, officers shall issue a verbal warning to the subject that the ECW will be used prior to its use. Where feasible, the officer will defer ECW application for a reasonable time to allow the subject to comply with the warning. 56. ECWs will not be used where such deployment may cause serious injury or death from situational hazards, including falling, drowning, losing control ofa moving vehicle, or igniting a potentially explosive or flammable material or substance, except where lethal force would be permitted. 57. After one standard ECW cycle (5 seconds), the officer shall reevaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Officers shall be trained in the risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to the ECW for longer than 15 seconds, whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling, may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Officers shall independently justify each cycle used against a subject in written Force Statements. 58. Officers shall not intentionally activate more than one ECW at a time against a subject. 59. ECWs shall not be used in drive-stun mode as a pain compliance technique. ECWs shall be used in drive-stun mode only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between officers and the subject, so that officers can consider another force option. 60. ECWs shall not be used against visibly pregnant women, elderly persons, young children, or visibly frail persons, except where lethal force would be permitted, or where the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent risk of serious physical injury. Officers shall determine the reasonableness ofECW use based upon all circumstances, including the subject's age, size, physical condition, and the feasibility of lesser force options. Officers shall be trained in the increased risks that ECWs may present to the above-listed vulnerable populations.
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 26 of 129
61. ECWs may not be applied to a subject's head, neck, or genitalia, except where lethal force would be permitted, or where the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent risk of serious physical injury. 62. ECWs shall not be used on handcuffed subjects, unless doing so is necessary to prevent them from causing serious physical injury to themselves or others, and if lesser attempts of control have been ineffective. 63. Officers shall keep ECWs in a weak-side holster to reduce the chances of accidentally drawing and/or firing a firearm. 64. Officers shall receive annual ECW certifications, which should consist ofphysical competency; weapon retention; NOPD policy, including any policy changes; technology changes; and scenario-based training. 65. Officers shall be trained in and follow protocols developed by NOPD, in conjtu1ction with medical professionals, on their responsibilities following ECW use, including:
a) the removal of ECW probes, including requiring medical or specially trained NOPD personnel to remove probes that are embedded in a subject's skin, except for probes that are embedded in a subject's head, throat, groin, or other sensitive area, which should be removed by medical personnel only; b) the risk of positional asphyxia, and training officers to use a restraint technique that does not impair the subject's respiration following an ECW application; c) the transportation to a hospital for evaluation of all subjects who: have been exposed to prolonged application (more than 15 seconds); are a member of one of the vulnerable populations listed above; or had an ECW used against them in circumstances presenting a heightened risk of harm, such as subjects tu1der the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium; or were kept in prone restraint after ECW use; and d) the monitoring ofall subjects who have received ECW application while in police custody. 66. Officers shall report all ECW discharges (except for training discharges), laser painting, and/or arcing of weapons to their supervisor and the communications command center as soon as possible.
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 27 of 129
67. NOPD agrees to develop and implement integrity safeguards on the use ofECWs to ensure compliance with NOPD policy, including conducting random and directed audits ofECW deployment data. The audits should compare the downloaded data to the officer' s Force Statement. Discrepancies within the audit should be addressed and appropriately investigated. 68. NOPD agrees to include the number ofECWs in operation, and the number ofECW uses, as elements of the EWS. Analysis of this data shall include a determination of whether ECWs result in an increase in the use offorce, and whether officer and subject injuries are affected by the rate of ECW use. In addition, the analysis shall include laser painting and arcing of weapons to measure the prevention/deterrence effectiveness associated with the use ofECWs. ECW data and analysis shall be included in NOPD's Use of Force Annual Report. G. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray 69. NOPD agrees to prohibit the use or possession of Oleoresin Capsicum Spray by on-duty officers, including officers working secondary employment. H. SWATTeams 70. The mission of SOD's Tactical Platoons (currently known as "SWAT" Teams) shall be limited to providing a specialized response to critical situations where a tactical response is required, such as hostage rescue, barricaded subjects, high-risk warrant service and high-risk apprehension, and terrorism response. The policy shall prohibit SWAT tactics and equipment from being deployed or used for routine or ''proactive" patrol functions or crime prevention, or for the service of non-high-risk warrants, unless approved in writing by a Deputy Superintendent. This provision does not prohibit SWAT Team members from providing uniformed policing services. 71. NOPD agrees to provide written guidance on what types of warrants may be considered "high-risk," and what tactics are permissible for the service of high-risk warrants. Barring emergency circumstances, the SWAT Tearn shall have the primary responsibility for execution ofany high-risk warrant utilizing tactical team officers equipped with special equipment, training, and weapons. 72. In addition to any Use of Force Reports, the SWAT Team shall document its activities in detail, including by preparing written operational plans in consistent formats, and written afteraction reports subsequent to call-outs and deployments to critical situations, such as hostage rescue, barricaded subjects, high-risk warrant service, high-risk apprehension, and terrorism
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 28 of 129
. response. After-action reports shall address any areas of concern related to policy, training, equipment, or tactics. 73. Supervisory review ofSWAT Team deployments shall be conducted by an uninvolved, command-level supervisor possessing the requisite knowledge and expertise to analyze and critique specialized response protocols, and shall identify any policy, training, equipment, or tactical concerns raised by the action. Command staffshall identify areas ofconcern or particular successes, and shall implement the appropriate response, including modifications to policy, training, equipment, or tactics. 74. No NOPD personnel shall serve on the SWAT Team for more than five consecutive years (or three consecutive years from the Effective Date, whichever is later), unless they provide a specialized-service function {e.g., negotiator, bomb technician). After this period of service, all personnel shall be reassigned for a period of three years before they may return to SWAT 75. NOPD agrees to track and analyze the number of SWAT Team deployments. The analysis shall include the reason for each activation, the legal authority, type of warrant {if applicable), and the result of each deployment, including: {1) the location; (2) the number of arrests; (3) the type of evidence or property seized; (4) whether a forcible entry was required; (5) whether a weapon was discharged by a SWAT Team member; and (6) whether a person or domestic animal was injured or killed. This data analysis shall be entered into the EWS and included in NOPD's annual Use of Force Report. I. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Report 76. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy, using a uniform, supervisor Use of Force Report, which will include individual officer Force Statements. NOPD uses of force shall be divided into four levels: a) Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury. b) Level 2 uses of force include use of an ECW (including where an ECW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns).
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 29 of 129
c) Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal. d) Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by this Agreement, and shall be investigated by NOPD's Force Investigation Team. 77. Hand control or escort techniques applied for the purposes of handcuffing or escorts that are not used as pressure point compliance techniques, do not result in injury or complaint of injury, and are not used to overcome resistance, are not reportable uses of force. 78. All officers using a Level 1 through 4 use offorce, and officers observing a Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 use of force, shall write a Force Statement before the end of shift, which shall be included in the Use of Force Report. The officer's Force Statement shall include: (1) a detailed account of the incident from the officer's perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use offorce; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a description ofevery type offorce used. 79. Officers' Force Statements shall completely and accurately describe the force used or observed. The use of force reporting policy shall explicitly prohibit the use ofconclusory statements without supporting detail, including "boilerplate" or "pat" language (e.g., "furtive movement" or "fighting stance") in all statements and reports documenting use of force . Officers shall be subject to disciplinary action for material omissions or inaccuracies in their Force Statements. 80. Officers who use or observe force shall notify their supervisors immediately following any use of force incident or upon receipt of an allegation ofunreasonable or unreported use of force by any officer. Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 81. Use of Force Reports, including Force Statements, shall be maintained centrally by PIB. 82. At least annually, NOPD agrees to analyze the year's force data, including the forcerelated outcome data listed in section XIX.C. below, to determine significant trends; identify and correct deficiencies revealed by this analysis; and document its findings in a public report. J. Use of Force Supervisory Investigations 83. The direct supervisor ofthe officer using a Level 1 use of force shall review and approve in writing the Level 1 use offorce before the end of the shift during which the Level 1 force was
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 30 of 129
used. Supervisors shall elevate and investigate any use offorce that appears to have been inappropriately categorized as a Level 1 use offorce. 84. The direct supervisor of the officer(s) using force, upon notification ofa Level2, Level 3, or Level 4 use of force incident or allegation ofexcessive force, shall respond to the location of occurrence. The direct supervisor of the officer(s) involved in the reportable use of force incident shall investigate all uses of force, with the exception of:
a) those incidents involving a serious use of force (Level4 uses offorce); b) uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, as defined in this Agreement; c) a use of force incident by NOPD personnel of a rank higher than the supervisor assigned to investigate the incident; or d) a use offorce investigation reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant or his designee or
PIB.
85. A supervisor who was involved in a reportable incident, including by participating in or ordering the force being investigated, shall not investigate the incident or review the Force Statements for approval. 86. For all Level2 and Level 3 uses of force, the investigating supervisor shall:
a) respond to the scene, examine the subject ofthe force for injury, interview the subject for complaints ofpain after advising the subject ofhis/her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider; b) notify PIB immediately of the use of force and obtain a use of force tracking number; c) identify and collect all relevant evidence and evaluate that evidence to determine whether the use of force: (1) was consistent with NOPD policy and/or (2) raises any policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns; d) ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use of force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected; e) ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted. In addition, civilian witnesses should be encouraged to provide and sign a written statement in their own words; f) ensure that all officers witnessing a use of force incident by another officer provide a Force
25

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 31 of 129
Statement. Officers involved in a use offorce incident shall be separated until interviewed. Group interviews shall be prohibited. Supervisors shall ensure that all Use ofForce Reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors shall not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officers' conduct, where such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. Investigating supervisors shall record all interviews with civilian witnesses and all follow-up interviews with officers, and shall record all interviews with subjects, after advising them of their rights and that they seek to question them only about the use of force. The recording requirements set out in Custodial Interrogations do not apply to subject interviews regarding the use offorce. g) review all Force Statements and ensure that all reports include the information required by this Agreement and NOPD policy; and h) consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. Supervisors will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries. NOPD will train all ofits supervisors on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility, incorporating credibility instructions provided to jurors. Where a reasonable and trained supervisor would determine that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor shall immediately notify FIT to respond to the scene. 87. Each supervisor shall provide a written gist to the Division Commander by the end of the shift documenting the supervisor's preliminary determination of the appropriateness of the use of force, including whether the force was reasonable and within policy; whether the injuries appear proportionate to the use offorce described; and summaries of subject, witness, and officer statements. 88. Each supervisor shall complete and document a use of force supervisory investigation using a supervisor's Use of Force Report within 72 hours oflearning of the use of force. Any extension to this 72-hour deadline must be authorized by a Division Commander. This Report shall include: a) the supervisor's narrative description ofthe incident, including a precise description ofthe evidence that either justifies or fails to justifY the officer's conduct based on the supervisor's
26

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 32 of 129
independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident; b) documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone munbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report shall specifically state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author ofthe report from determining the identification, phone number or address of those witnesses, the report shall state the reasons why. The report should also include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement; c) the names of all other N 0 PD employees witnessing the use of force; d) the investigating supervisor's evaluation of the use of force, based on the supervisor's review ofthe evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer's actions appear to be within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation teclmiques or lesser force options; and e) documentation ofany non-disciplinary corrective action taken. 89. Upon completion of the supervisor's Use of Force Report, the investigating supervisor shall forward the report through their chain of command to the ICO (if applicable) and/or Division Commander, who shall review the report to ensure that it is.complete and that the findings are supported using the preponderance ofthe evidence standard. The Division Commander and/or ICO shall order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility of the findings. 90. Where the findings of the Use ofForce Report are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the investigating supervisor's chain of command shall document the reasons for this determination and shall include this documentation as an addendum to the original investigation. The investigating supervisor's superior shall counsel the investigating supervisor regarding the inadequately supported determination and of any investigative deficiencies that led to it. The Division Commander and/or ICOs shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness ofUse of Force Reports prepared by supervisors under their command.
27

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 33 of 129
91. Where an investigating supervisor repeatedly conducts deficient investigations, the supervisor shall receive the appropriate corrective action, including training, demotion, and/or removal from a supervisory position in accordance with performance evaluation procedures and/or Civil Service Rules. 92. Whenever an investigating supervisor, reviewing supervisor, ICO, or Division Commander finds evidence of a use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, he or she shall suspend the force investigation immediately and notify PIB. PIB shall immediately notify FIT, which will take over the investigation. 93. When the Division Commander fmds that the investigation is complete and the fmdings are supported by the evidence, the investigation file shall be forwarded to Pill. PIB shall review the investigation to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by the evidence. 94. At the discretion of the Superintendent, his designee, or PIB, a use of force investigation may be assigned or re-assigned for investigation to FIT or to another supervisor, whether within or outside of the District in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the Unit for further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall be explained in writing. 95. Where, after investigation, a use of force is found to be out of policy, the Superintendent shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline. Where the use of force indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the Superintendent shall ensure also that necessary training is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved.
K. Force Investigation Team
96. NOPD agrees to establish a single, uniform reporting and investigation/review system for all Level4 uses offorce (i.e., serious uses offorce, including critical firearm discharges), as defined by this Agreement. 97. NOPD agrees to ensure that all serious uses of force are investigated fully and fairly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence, and investigative skills to ensure that uses of force that are contrary to law or policy are identified and appropriately resolved; that policy, training, equipment, or tactical deficiencies related to the use of force are identified and corrected; and that investigations ofsufficient quality to ensure that officers are held accountable, as necessary are conducted. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to:
a) create a FIT to conduct investigations of serious uses of force, uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, uses of force by NOPD personnel ofa rank higher
28

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 34 of 129
than sergeant, or uses of force reassigned to FIT by the Superintendant or his designee or PIB. FIT also shall investigate all instances where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result ofbeing in, the custody ofNOPD. FIT shall be comprised ofpersonnel who are specially trained in both criminal and administrative force investigations. Members of FIT shall be assigned to PIB and shall not be assigned to any District. FIT investigations may result in criminal charges, administrative action, or both. b) Within 280 days from the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to recruit, assign, and train a sufficient number of personnel to FIT to fulfill the requirements ofthis Agreement. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members shall receive 40 hours of FIT-specific training in FIT procedures; call out and investigative protocols; proper roles of on~scene counterparts such as crime scene technicians, the Monitor, the DA, the IPM, and the City Attorney's Office; and investigative equipment and techniques. FIT members shall also receive FIT-specific annual in~service training. c) NOPD agrees to create a FIT procedural manual. The procedural manual shall include:
(1) definitions ofall relevant terms; (2) clear statements of the mission and authority of FIT; (3) procedures on report writing; (4) procedures for collecting and processing evidence; (5) procedures to ensure appropriate separation of criminal and administrative investigations in the event ofcompelled subject officer statements; (6) procedures for consulting with the DA, including ensuring that administrative investigations are not unnecessarily delayed while a criminal investigation is pending; (7) scene management procedures; and (8) management procedures. 98. Where appropriate to ensure the fact and appearance of impartiality, for investigations of serious uses of force or force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, NOPD may refer the incident for investigation by an independent and highly competent entity outside NOPD. 99. NOPD's Homicide Section shall not investigate any NOPD officer~involved serious use offorce as defined by this Agreement, or any in-custody death.
29

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 35 of 129
100. In every incident involving a serious use offorce, or any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, the supervisor shall immediately notify FIT. Unless it can verify that the supervisor has already done so, FIT shall immediately notify PIB of the use offorce and obtain a use offorce tracking number. 101. FIT shall respond to the scene ofevery incident involving a serious use of force, any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, any use of force by an officer of a rank higher than sergeant, and incident where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD, or as ordered by the Superintendent or his designee or PIB. 102. The Commander ofPIB shall immediately notify and consult with the DA, IPM, FBI, and the USAO regarding any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, evidence of apparent criminal conduct by an officer discovered during a misconduct investigation, any use offorce in which an officer discharged his firearm, or where an individual has died while in, or as an apparent result of being in, the custody ofNOPD. 103. If the case may proceed criminally, or where NOPD requests a criminal prosecution, any compelled interview ofthe subject officers shall be delayed. No other part of the investigation shall be held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Superintendent in consultation with the agency conducting the criminal investigation. 104. NOPD agrees to make good faith efforts to work with the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office in requesting that that Office provide a completed Coroner's report within 30 days regarding a death proximate to a use of force and with the DA or other investigating agency regarding any criminal declination within 60 days after the use offorce. 105. In conducting its investigation, FIT shall:
a) review all Force Statements to ensure that these statements include the information required by this Agreement and NOPD policy; b) respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his or her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider; c) ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use offorce, including but not limited to audio and video recordings, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected;
30

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 36 of 129
d) ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted. In addition, civilian witnesses should be encouraged to provide and sign a written statement in their own words; e) ensure, consistent with applicable law, that all officers witnessing a serious use of force incident by another officer provide a Force Statement regarding the incident. Officers
involved in a use of force incident shall be separated until interviewed. Group interviews
shall be prohibited. FIT shall ensure that all FIT investigation reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it occurred. FIT shall not ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officers' conduct, when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. FIT shall record all interviews; and f) consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. FIT will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries. NOPD will train all of its FIT members on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility, incorporating credibility instructions provided to jurors. 106. FIT shall complete a preliminary report that shall be presented to the Superintendent or the Superintendent's designee as soon as possible, but in no circumstances later than 24 hours after learning ofthe use of force. 107. FIT shall complete its administrative use of force investigation within 30 days from the use of force. Any request for an extension to this time limit must be approved by the Deputy Superintendent ofPIB through consultation with the Superintendent. At the conclusion ofeach use of force investigation, FIT shall prepare an investigation report. The report shall include: a) a narrative description ofthe incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fails to justify the officer's conduct based on FIT's independent review of the facts and circumstances ofthe incident; b) documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report shall specifically state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author ofthe report from determining the identification, phone
31

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 37 of 129
number, or address ofthose witnesses, the report shall state the reasons why. The report should also include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement; c) the names of all other NOPD employees witnessing the use of force; d) FIT's evaluation ofthe basis for the use of force, based on FIT's review ofthe evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer's actions appear to be within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use ofde-escalation techniques or lesser force options; e) if a weapon was used, documentation that the officer's certification and training for the weapon are current; and f) documentation ofany disciplinary and/or non-disciplinary corrective action recommended. L. Use of Force Review Board 108. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a Use of Force Review Board to review all serious uses offorce and other FIT investigations. The UFRB shall be comprised ofthe Deputy Superintendent ofthe Public Integrity Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent ofthe Field Operations Bureau, and the Deputy Superintendent of the Investigations & Support Bureau. The UFRB shall conduct timely, comprehensive, and reliable reviews. The UFRB shall: a) review each FIT investigation within 30 days of receiving the FIT investigation report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance ofthe evidence; b) hear the case presentation from the lead investigator and discuss the case as necessary with the investigator to gain a full understanding of the facts of the incident. The officer(s) who used the force subject to investigation, or who are otherwise the subject(s) of the FIT investigation, shall not be present; c) order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability or credibility ofthe fmdings. Where the findings are not supported by a preponderance ofthe evidence, the UFRB shall document the reasons for this determination, which shall be included as an addendum to the original investigation, including the specific evidence or analysis supporting their conclusions;
32

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 38 of 129
d) determine whether the force violated NOPD policy. If the force violated NOPD policy, the UFRB shall refer it to PIB for disciplinary action; e) determine whether the incident raises policy, training, equipment, or tactical concerns, and
refer such incidents to the appropriate unit within NOPD to ensure they are resolved; t) direct District supervisors to take and document non-disciplinary corrective action to
enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance; and g) document its fmdings and recommendations in a UFRB Report within 45 days of receiving the FIT investigation and within 15 days of the UFRB case presentation. M. Use of Force Training 109. NOPD shall provide all NOPD officers with 40 hours of use offorce training within 365 days of the Effective Date, and 24 hours of use of force training on at least an annual basis thereafter, including, as necessary, developments in applicable law and NOPD policy. NOPD shall coordinate and review all use of force training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with the Constitution, Louisiana law, this Agreement and NOPD policy. NOPD's use offorce training shall include the following topics: a) NOPD's use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision-making; c) use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and related law; e) role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision-making, including training on the importance and impact ofethical decision making and peer intervention; t) the proper deployment and use ofall intermediate weapons or technologies, including batons, canines, and ECWs; g) 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 offorce would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) basic crisis intervention and interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies (the
33

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 39 of 129
Crisis Intervention Training provided to all new and current officers pursuant to this Agreement may be combined with this training); j) factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit; k) appropriate training on conflict management; and 1) for supervisors of all ranks, as part of their initial and annual in-service supervisory training, additional training in conducting use of force investigations; strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting officers who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated against for using only reasonable force or attempting to prevent unreasonable force. 110. Included in the use of force training set out above, NOPD shall deliver firearms training to all officers within 365 days ofthe Effective Date and at least yearly thereafter. NOPD fireru.ms training shall: a) require officers to complete and satisfactorily pass firearm training and to qualify for regulation and other service firearms, as necessary, on an annual basis; b) require recruits, officers in probationary periods, and officers who return from unarmed status to complete and satisfactorily pass firearm training and to qualify for regulation and other service firearms before such personnel are permitted to carry and use firearms; c) incorporate professional night training, stress training (e.g., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion), and proper use offorce decision-making training, including continuous threat assessment techniques, in the annual in-service training program; and d) ensure that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm teclmiques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times.
IV. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.
34

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 40 of 129
A. Crisis Intervention Planning Committee
111. Within 180 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD and the City agree to implement a Crisis Intervention Plarming Committee ("Planning Committee") to direct the development and implementation ofthe CIT. The Planning Committee shall analyze and recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training methods regarding police contact with persons who may be mentally ill with the goal of de-escalating the potential for violent encounters. 112. The Planning Committee shall include representation from NOPD command leadership and City-contracted mental health professionals. NOPD shall also seek representation from the civilian leadership ofthe MCTU, local municipal government, the New Orleans Metropolitan Human Services District, community mental health professionals, professionals from emergency health care receiving facilities, members of the local judiciary, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office, homeless service agencies, and mental health professionals and advocates.
B. Program Development
113. NOPD and the City agree to implement a comprehensive first responder CIT program to develop and maintain specially trained CIT officers. This program shall incorporate the following:
a) Within 270 days ofthe Effective Date, an operations subcommittee, appointed by and reporting to the Planning Committee, shall develop policies and procedures for the transfer of custody or voluntary referral of individuals between NOPD, receiving facilities, and local mental health and social service agencies. These policies and procedures shall clearly describe the existing roles and responsibilities ofthe existing MCTU and NOPD patrol officers, and ofCIT officers. b) NOPD agrees to continue using the MCTU and to continue staffing it with well-trained and dedicated community volunteers, to assist NOPD patrol units in the management and transportation of persons suffering a mental health crisis or from a diagnosed behavioral disorder. MCTU shall retain its duties and responsibilities in providing transportation for individuals experiencing a mental health or behavioral crisis. c) Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Planning Committee shall select CIT officer volunteers, based upon supervisor recommendations, PIB records, and interviews. Preference should be given to officers with at least three years of field experience. d) CIT officers shall be assigned to the patrol division and maintain their standard patrol
35

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 41 of 129
duties, except when called to respond to potential behavioral or mental health crisis events outside oftheir assigned patrol district. e) CIT officers who are dispatched to a crisis event shall have the responsibility for the scene and discretion to determine strategies for resolving the event unless an appropriate supervisor is present and affirmatively assumes the scene responsibility. t) NOPD shall track CIT use through data provided by the CIT officer or MCTU after each response. NOPD shall gather and track the following data at a minimum:
(1) Date, time, and location of the incident~ (2) Subject's name, age, gender, and address;
(3) Whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon;
(4) Whether the subject is a U .S. military veteran; (5) Complainant's name and address; (6) Name and badge number ofCIT officer on the scene; (7) Whether a supervisor responded to the scene; (8) Techniques or equipment used; (9) Any injuries to officers, subject, or others; (1 0) Disposition; and (11) Briefnarrative ofthe event (if not included in any other document). g) NOPD shall publicly report this data, aggregated as necessary to protect privacy. C. CIT and First Responder Training 114. NOPD shall require officers selected for the CIT program to undergo a 40-hour initial comprehensive training prior to being assigned CIT duties, and eight hours of in-service training annually thereafter. 115. Within three years, NOPD shall train at least 20% of its patrol division in the CIT program to ensure that NOPD can provide a CIT-trained officer in each shift in each District.
116. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, a curriculwn subcommittee of the Planning
Committee shall develop a 40-hour curriculum and in-service training for first responders based on the national CIT model. The curriculum subcommittee may adapt MCTU's existing training curriculum for this purpose. CIT training faculty should include volunteer local area professionals and advocates to the greatest extent possible. This crisis intervention training shall
36

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 42 of 129
emphasize mental health-related topics, crisis resolution skills, de-escalation training, and access to community-based services. 117. Training for all newly selected CIT officers shall begin within 365 days of the Effective Date and shall be completed within three years. This training shall include not only lecturebased instruction, but also on-site visitation and exposure to mental health facilities, intensive interaction with individuals with a mental illness, and scenario-based de-escalation skills training. 118. In addition to the more extensive training for CIT officers set out above, NOPD agrees to provide all new recruits at least 16 hours of training on responding to persons in behavioral or mental health crisis, and four hours of in-service training annually thereafter. NOPD and the City further agree to provide all current officers with eight hours oftraining on responding to persons in behavioral or mental crisis within 365 days of the Effective Date, and four hours of inservice training annually thereafter. 119. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to offer the 40-hour crisis intervention training to all new and current dispatchers to enable them to identify calls for service that involve behavioral or mental health crisis events. NOPD agrees to offer to provide this training to new dispatchers within 90 days of their start date. NOPD agrees to offer crisis intervention in annual in-service training for dispatchers. D. Maintenance of CIT Program 120. NOPD agrees to maintain the CIT Planning Committee after the CIT program is operational. The Planning Committee shall serve as a problem-solving forum for interagency issues and shall monitor ongoing outcome indicators collected by each agency. These indicators may include data such as NOPD CIT use, NOPD CIT behavioral event disposition data, Orleans Parish Prison booking data, the number of individuals with a mental health diagnosis at the jail, and the transfer ofcustody and voluntary referral rates between NOPD, emergency receiving facilities, and community agencies. 121. NOPD agrees to review the outcome data generated through the process described above to: detennine whether to recognize individual CIT officer perfonnance that deserves commendation; develop new response strategies for repeat calls for service; identify training needs for the annual CIT in-service; make CIT curriculum changes; and identify other NOPD issues to allow NOPD to provide an appropriate response to a behavioral crisis event.
37

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 43 of 129
V. STOPS, SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS NOPD agrees to ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. NOPD agrees to ensure that investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy~ are consistent with community priorities for enforcement; and are carried out with fairness and respect. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Investigatory Stops and Detentions 122. NOPD officers may only conduct investigatory stops or detentions where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the conunission ofa crime. 123. NOPD officers shall use accurate and specific descriptive language and not rely solely on "boilerplate" or "pat" language in any reports documenting investigatory stops, detentions, or searches. Articulation of reasonable suspicion and probable cause shall be specific and clear. 124. NOPD officers shall not use or rely on infonnation known to be materially false or incorrect in effectuating an investigatory stop or detention. 125. NOPD officers shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part of an actual and apparently credible description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 126. NOPD officers shall continue to require reasonable suspicion to conduct field interviews, and document investigatory field contacts, including field interviews, in accordance with the stop and search data collection requirements of this Agreement. B. Searches 127. NOPD officers shall not use race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in exercising discretion to conduct a warrantless search or to seek a search warrant, except as part of an actual and apparently credible description ofa specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 128. An officer shall immediately notify a supervisor when considering a search based on consent, and the supervisor shall approve the search before it is conducted.
38

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 44 of 129
129. Where an officer seeks consent for a search. the officer shall affirmatively inform the subject of his or her right to refuse and to revoke consent at any time, and document the subject's consent on a written form that explains these rights. 130. NOPD officers shall only conduct searches of individuals on probation or parole where legal authority for the search has been established. 131. NOPD agrees to ensure that the consent to search form includes separate signature lines for civilians to affirm that they understand they have a right to refuse, and for officers to certify that they have read and explained the right to refuse to the civilian. 132. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers understand how strip and body cavity searches are different than regular searches and are trained on how to conduct proper field strip searches. NOPD shall ensure that field strip searches ofarrestees are performed only in the rarest of circumstances under exigent circumstances where the life ofofficers or others may be placed at risk, under conditions that provide privacy and with the explicit approval ofa supervisory officer. NOPD agrees to ensure that strip searches are only performed when the officer has articulable probable cause that a subject is concealing a weapon or contraband. 133. When approval to conduct a strip search is requested, the supervisor shall immediately respond to the scene to approve the strip search. In situations where strip searches are legally justified, necessary under NOPD policy, and authorized by a supervisor, the search shall be conducted in a professional manner by trained personnel; include the least number ofpersonnel necessary; be performed only by those ofthe same sex as the identified sex ofthe individual; and under conditions that provide privacy from all but those authorized to conduct the search. 134. NOPD agrees to ensure that body cavity searches are performed only after obtaining a search warrant and by specially trained medical personnel. 135. An affidavit or sworn declaration supporting an application for a search warrant shall provide an accurate and clear description ofthe reasons for the request for the search, the place or thing to be searched, and items or possible evidence that are the purpose of the search. 136. A supervisor shall review each request for a search or arrest warrant, including each affidavit or declaration, before it is filed by an officer in support of a warrant application, for appropriateness, legality, and conformance with NOPD policy and this Agreement. The supervisor shall assess the information contained in the warrant application and supporting
39

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 45 of 129
documents for authenticity, including an examination for "boilerplate" or "pat" language, inconsistent information, and lack ofarticulation ofa legal basis for the warrant. 137. As part ofthe supervisory review, the supervisor shall document in an auditable format those warrant applications that are legally unsupported, are in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review ofagency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies, including recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. The quality and accuracy of search warrants and supportive affidavits or declarations shall be taken into account in officer performance evaluations. 138. A supervisor shall assist in developing an operational plan for the execution ofa search warrant, be present for execution ofthe search warrant, and review and document the search in an after~action report within 24 hours ofthe execution of the warrant. 139. NOPD officers shall not detain non-occupants present at the location where a search warrant is executed for longer than reasonably necessary to secure the area, or to determine whether they are occupants of the premises being searched, or where the officer has individualized reasonable suspicion that the non-occupant is involved in criminal activity or poses a danger to officer safety. 140. NOPD shall maintain, centrally and in each NOPD District and specialized unit, a log listing each search warrant, the case file where a copy of such warrant is maintained, the officer who applied for the search warrant, and each supervisor who reviewed the application for a search warrant. C. Arrests 141. An NOPD officer shall only arrest an individual where the officer has probable cause. 142. In effectuating an arrest, NOPD officers shall not rely on information known to be materially false or incorrect. Officers may not consider race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in effecting an arrest, except as part ofan actual and apparently credible description(s) ofa specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. 143. An officer shall immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a felony arrest; an arrest where the officer used force; an arrest for obstructing or resisting an officer; a custodial
40

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 46 of 129
arrest where the most serious violation was a vehicle infraction, simple drug possession, or, outside the French Quarter and Central Business District, any of the following city or state laws: Disturbing the Peace (City Code 54-103; LSA-R.S. 14: 103); Criminal Trespass (City Code 54-153; LSA-R.S. 14:63); Obstructing Public Passages (City Code 54-40; LSA-R.S. 14:100.1); or Begging!Vagrancy (City Code 54-411; 14:107). Upon notification, the supervisor shall respond to the scene. 144. The responding supervisor shall approve or disapprove the officer's arrest recommendation based on the existence of probable cause and NOPD policy. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies in the officer's arrest recommendation, including releasing the subject, recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. 145. NOPD patrol officers shall complete all arrest reports before the end of shift. NOPD field supervisors shall review each arrest report of officers under their command and shall memorialize their review in writing within 12 hours of receiving the report, absent exceptional circumstances. Supervisors shall review reports and forms for "boilerplate" or "pat" language, inconsistent information, lack ofprobable cause, or other indications that the information in the reports or forms is not authentic or correct. 146. As part of the supervisory review, the supervisor shall document in an auditable format those arrests that are unsupported by probable cause, are in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address violations or deficiencies in making arrests, including recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. For each subordinate, the supervisor shall track each violation or deficiency and the corrective action taken, to identify officers needing repeated corrective action. The supervisor shall ensure that each violation or deficiency is noted in the officer's performance evaluations. The quality of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the supervisor's own performance evaluations. NOPD shall take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action against supervisors who fail to conduct reviews of adequate and consistent quality.
41

---------- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 47 of 129
147. A command-level official shall review, in writing, all supervisory reviews related to arrests that are unsupported by probable cause, are in violation ofNOPD policy, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. The commander's review shall be completed within seven days ofreceiving the document reporting the event. The commander shall evaluate the corrective action and recommendations in the supervisor's written report and ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken, including referring the incident to PIB for investigation, if appropriate. 148. NOPD shall track centrally and at the District level the DA's acceptance and refusal rates of arrests made by NOPD and reasons for refusals, when made available by the DA, including those factors and information indicating that a failure to prosecute was due to the quality of officer arrests or concerns regarding officer conduct. Each District Commander shall be held accountable for referring-to PIB for investigation any information regarding specific incidents of possible officer misconduct related to officer arrests noted in the DA' s refusal reasons. D. Stop and Search Data Collection and Review 149. Within 270 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD shall develop a written or electronic report format to collect data on all investigatory stops and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a citation. This system shall allow for summarization and searches and also shall be integrated into the EWS. NOPD's stop and search data collection system shall be subject to the review and approval ofthe Monitor and DOJ, and shall require officers to document the following:
a) officer's name and badge number; b) date and time ofthe stop; c) location ofthe stop; d) duration ofthe stop; e) subject's apparent race, ethnicity, gender, and apparent age; f) if a vehicle stop, presence and number of any passengers and the apparent race, ethnicity, gender, and age of each passenger; if a non-vehicle stop (e.g., pedestrian or bicycle), number of individuals stopped and race, ethnicity, gender, and age of each person; g) reason for the stop, including a description of the facts creating reasonable suspicion; h) ifa vehicle stop, whether the driver or any passenger was required to exit the vehicle, and reason;
42

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 48 of 129
i) whether any individual was asked to consent to a search and whether such consent was gtven; j) whether a probable cause search was performed on any individual, including a brief description ofthe facts creating probable cause; k) whether a pat-and-frisk or other search was performed on any individual, including a description ofthe facts justifying the pat-and-frisk or other search; 1) whether any contraband or evidence was seized from any individual, and nature of the contraband or evidence; and m) disposition of the stop, including whether a citation or summons was issued to, or an arrest was made of, any individual. 150. Officers shall docwnent investigatory stops and detentions, and any searches resulting from or proximate to the stop or detention. In all instances where property or evidence is seized, the officer shall immediately complete a police incident report docwnenting a complete and accurate inventory ofthe property or evidence seized, and submit the property or evidence seized to Central Property and Evidence before the end of shift. All documentation of stops, detentions, searches, and seizures shall be submitted to the officer's supervisor by the end of shift. Absent exceptional circumstances, field supervisors shall review investigatory stops and detention or search reports by field officers within 12 hours of receiving this report. Supervisors shall report and shall document: (1) those investigatory stops and detentions that appear unsupported by reasonable suspicion; (2) those searches that appear to be without legal justification; (3) stops or searches in violation ofNOPD policy or this Agreement, or (4) stops or searches that indicate a need for corrective action or review ofagency policy, strategy, tactics, or training. 151. The supervisor shall take appropriate action to address all violations or deficiencies in investigatory stops, detentions, or executions of searches, including recommending nondisciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. For each subordinate, the supervisor shall track each violation or deficiency and the corrective action taken, ifany, in order to identify officers needing repeated corrective action. The supervisor shall ensure that each violation or deficiency is noted in the officer' s performance evaluations. The quality and completeness of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the supervisor' s own performance evaluations. NOPD shall take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action against supervisors who fail to
43

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 49 of 129
conduct complete, thorough, and accurate reviews of officers' investigatory detentions and searches. 152. NOPD shall develop a protocol for comprehensive analysis, on at least an annual basis, of the stop and search data collected. This protocol shall be subject to the review and approval of the Monitor and DOJ, and shall identify and incorporate appropriate benchmarks for comparison. 153. On at least an annual basis, NOPD shall issue a report summarizing the stop and search data collected, the analysis ofthat data, and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes. The report shall be publicly available. 154. NOPD shall ensure that all databases containing individual-specific data comply fully with federal and state privacy standards governing personally identifying information. NOPD shall develop a process to restrict database access to authorized, identified users who are accessing the information for a specific and identified purpose. E. First Amendment Right to Observe and Record Officer Conduct 155. NOPD shall ensure that, in accordance with their rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, onlookers or bystanders may witness, observe, record, and/or comment on officer conduct, including stops, detentions, searches, arrests, or uses of force. Officers shall respect the right of civilians to observe, record, and/or verbally comment on or complain about the performance of police duties occurring in public, and NOPD shall ensure that officers understand that exercising this right serves important public purposes. 156. Individuals observing stops, detentions, arrests, and other incidents shall be permitted to remain in the proximity of the incident unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met.
157. Individuals shall be permitted to record police officer enforcement activities by camera,
video recorder, cell phone recorder, or other means, unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met. 158. Officers shall not threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from remaining in the proximity of or recording police officer enforcement activities. 159. Officers shall not detain, prolong the detention of, or arrest an individual for remaining in the proximity of, recording, or verbally commenting on officer conduct directed at the individual or a third party, unless one of the conditions in paragraph 160 is met. 160. Officers shall take appropriate law enforcement action against a bystander only if a bystander's presence would jeopardize the safety ofthe officer, the suspect, others in the vicinity
44

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 50 of 129
or crime scene integrity; the bystander violates the law; or the bystander incites others to violate the law. 161. Officers shall not seize or otherwise coerce production of recorded sounds or images without obtaining a warrant, or order an individual to destroy such recordings. Where an officer has a reasonable beliefthat a bystander or witness has captured a recording ofcritical evidence related to a felony, the officer may secure such evidence for no longer than required to obtain a legal subpoena, search warrant, or other valid order.
F. Stop, Search, and Arrest Training 162. NOPD shall provide all officers with at least 24 hours within 365 days of the Effective
Date, and at least four hours on at least an annual basis thereafter, of training on stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements of this Agreement. Such training shall be taught by a qualified legal instructor with significant experience in Fourth Amendment issues, and shall:
a) address Fourth Amendment and related law, NOPD policies, and requirements in this Agreement regarding searches and seizures; b) address First Amendment and related law, NOPD policies, and requirements in this Agreement on the rights ·of individuals to verbally dispute, observe, and record officer conduct; and c) address the difference between various police contacts by the scope and level of police intrusion; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and mere speculation; and between voluntary consent and mere acquiescence to police authority;
d) provide guidance on the facts and circumstances that should be considered in initiating,
conducting, terminating, and expanding an investigatory stop or detention; e) provide guidance on the level of permissible intrusion when conducting searches, such as "pat-downs" or "frisks"; f) provide guidance on the legal requirements for conducting searches, with and without a warrant; g) provide guidance on the permissible nature and scope of searches based on the level of intrusion on an individual's privacy interests, including searches conducted pursuant to probation or parole release provisions; h) specify the procedures for executing searches, including handling, recording, and taking custody of seized property or evidence;
45

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 51 of 129
i) provide guidance on effecting an arrest with and without an arrest warrant; and
j) provide guidance regarding the nature and scope of searches incident to an arrest. VI. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects' rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, including the rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.
A. Interrogation Restrictions and Equipment
163. Officers shall not use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual's family during custodial interrogations. 164. All custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded. All recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety. NOPD rejects the concept ofa "preinterview" and prohibits any decision not to record any portion of the interrogation based on such categorization. The recording equipment shall not be turned off unless the suspect states that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded. If the suspect requests that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded, the interviewer will record the subject making this request and shall document this request in the case report. 165. Ifthe interrogation is not able to be video and audio recorded because of equipment failure or malfunction, detectives shall record the interrogation by means of a digital or cassette recorder. Any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau. 166. All officers shall maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations. 167. Within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.
46

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 52 of 129
168. Within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall use qualified interpreters for any interrogation of an LEP individual, and Miranda warnings shall be provided to the subject in his or her primary language. Because of the dual role bilingual NOPD employees may have when conducting an interrogation and simultaneously acting as an interpreter, they should only be used as an interpreter during an interrogation if they have identified themselves as officers or employees of the Department, are authorized as NOPD interpreters, and are trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices, as required by this Agreement and NOPD's language assistance policy and plan. B. Detective Selection and Interrogation Training 169. NOPD shall post all detective openings throughout the Department and shall revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview. 170. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and deliver at least 24 hours offormal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. This training shall include legal standards, ethics, the mechanics ofconducting effective and constitutional investigations, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions. NOPD shall provide regular, and at least annual, in-service training to all detectives on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions.
VII. PHOTOGRAPIDC LINE-UPS NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable infonnation. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. 171. No officer who is involved in the investigation shall participate in administering the photographic lineup. The individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. 172. NOPD agrees that, before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. 173. NOPD agrees to select "filler" photographs-those that do not depict the suspect-of individuals who generally fit the witness's description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description ofthe perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of
47

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 53 of 129
the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 174. NOPD agrees to keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name ofthe administrator ofthe line-up. 175. NOPD agrees to document other information pertinent to the display procedure, including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure. 176. If a suspect selection is made, NOPD agrees to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used. It shall be kept as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part ofthe permanent case file.
VIII. BIAS·FREE POLICING NOPD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection ofthe law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Bias-Free Policing Training 177. NOPD agrees to provide all officers with four hours of comprehensive training on bias-free policing within 365 days of the Effective Date, and four hours annually thereafter, based on developments in Louisiana or federal law and NOPD policy. Such training shall emphasize that discriminatory policing in the form of either selective enforcement or nonenforcement of the law, including the selection or rejection of particular tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias, is prohibited by policy and will subject officers to discipline. This training shall address: a) methods and strategies for more effective policing that rely upon non-discriminatory factors; b) police and community perspectives related to discriminatory policing;
48

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 54 of 129
c) Constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements ofthis Agreement; d) the protection of civil rights as a central part ofthe police mission and as essential to effective policing; e) the existence and impact ofarbitrary classifications, stereotyping, and implicit bias; f) instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; g) identification of key decision points where prohibited discrimination can take effect at both the incident and strategic-planning levels; and h) methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination, including problem-oriented policing strategies. B. Ensuring Bias-Free Policing 178. NOPD agrees to apply and administer programs, initiatives, and activities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 179. NOPD agrees to provide clear guidance on prohibited conduct, including selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law and the selection or rejection of particular tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias. 180. NOPD leadership and supervising officers shall consistently reinforce to subordinates that discriminatory policing is an unacceptable tactic, including in making decisions to use particular police tactics in particular communities based upon stereotypes or bias. 181. NOPD agrees to incorporate the following elements in its training ofofficers: 1) introducing themselves at the initiation of contact with a civilian; 2) stating the reason for a investigatory stop or detention as soon as practicable; 3) ensuring that an investigatory stop or detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action; and 4) acting with professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction regardless of any provocation. 182. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to incorporate requirements regarding bias-free policing and equal protection into its hiring, promotion, and performance assessment processes, including giving significant weight to an individual's history ofsustained bias-related violations, as well as using interviews and other methods to assess the individual's ability to effectively practice bias-free policing.
49

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 55 of 129
183. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a plan to provide all individuals within the City essential police services regardless of immigration status, in order to build and preserve trust among community members, and to more effectively prevent and solve crime. As part of this plan:
a) Officers shall not take law enforcement action on the basis ofactual or perceived immigration status, including the initiation of stops or other field contacts; b) Officers shall not question victims of, or witnesses to, crime regarding their immigration status. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit NOPD from assisting nonimmigrant victims/witnesses in obtaining U-Visa I T-Visas, where appropriate; c) Officers shall not enforce La. R.S.l4:100.13, which the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, has found to unlawfully pre-empt federal regulations; and d) NOPD shall seek the assistance of community advocates in widely disseminating to the public, in English and in Spanish, NOPD's written policy incorporating these requirements. 184. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a specific policy to guide officers' interactions with members ofthe LGBT community, which shall prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. 185. NOPD agrees that officers will treat LGBT individuals with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and that officers are specifically prohibited from using harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language regarding or toward LGBT individuals. This shall include addressing transgender individuals with their chosen name, title, and pronoun. 186. NOPD agrees that officers shall not construe sexual orientation, gender identity, or
gender expression as reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an individual is or has engaged
in any crime, and that officers shall not request identification from or otherwise initiate a contact solely on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. 187. NOPD agrees that officers will not subject transgender individuals to more invasive or more frequent frisk procedures due to transgender status. Officers shall not frisk any person for the purpose ofdetermining that person's gender or to view or touch the person's genitals. Where same-gender searches are required by law or NOPD policy, the officer shall respect the gender identification expressed by the individual. Where the individual does not self-identify and the gender identity is not clear to a reasonable person or the officer is uncertain, the officer will take
50

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 56 of 129
reasonable, non-invasive steps to determine the gender identity, such as asking the individual how the individual would like to be addressed. 188. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and at least annually thereafter, NOPD agrees to assess all NOPD programs, initiatives, and activities to ensure that no program, initiative, or activity is applied or administered in a manner that discriminates against individuals on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. As part of its assessment, NOPD agrees to specifically include an assessment of misconduct complaints involving discrimination, use of force, motor vehicle and pedestrian stops, and arrests, including the selection or rejection ofparticular geographic deployment tactics or strategies based upon stereotypes or bias. NOPD shall base its assessment ofprograms, initiatives, and activities on accurate, complete, and reliable data, including data contained in the EWS, stop and detention data, use offorce analyses, crime trend analysis in relation to population demographics, enforcement practices based on community concerns, operations plans, and after-action reports. NOPD agrees to make this assessment publicly available. C. Language Assistance 189. NOPD agrees to effectively communicate with and provide timely and meaningful access to police services to all members ofthe community, regardless oftheir national origin or limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand English. To achieve this outcome, NOPD shall:
a) develop and implement a language assistance plan and policy that complies, at a minimum, with Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and other applicable law, and that comports with best practices and current professional
standards~
b) ensure that all NOPD personnel take reasonable steps to provide timely, meaningful language assistance services to LEP individuals they encounter and whenever an LEP individual requests language assistance services; c) identify and assess demographic data, specifically the number ofLEP individuals within its jurisdiction and the number of LEP victims and witnesses who seek NOPD services; d) use collected demographic and service data to identify and meet hiring needs for bilingual staff; e) regularly assess the proficiency and qualifications of bilingual staffto become an NOPD Authorized Interpreter;
51

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 57 of 129
f) create and maintain an NOPDAI List and provide that list to the Orleans Parish Communication District 911 Communications Center; g) ensure that Orleans Parish Communications District 911 call takers are trained to recognize the need for a NOPDAI to respond to an incident involving an LEP individual and dispatch a NOPDAI as appropriate. Ifno NOPDAI is available, the personnel shall contact a telephonic interpretation service provider. The call taker shall note in information to the radio dispatch that the 911 caller is an LEP individual and indicate the language; h) develop protocols for interpretation for interrogations and interviews ofLEP individuals to ensure a qualified interpreter is used for the taking of any formal statement from a suspect or witness in order to protect their legal rights; i) develop and implement a process for taking, responding to, and tracking citizen complaints and resolutions ofcomplaints filed by LEP individuals; j) identify official and vital documents that are subject to public dissemination, and require translation of such documents into Spanish and Vietnamese, at a minimum. Such vital documents include: consent to search forms; witness and victim statement forms; citation forms; victim rights notification fonns; citizen complaint forms; and notices advising LEP persons offree language assistance in connection with NOPD activities; k) implement a process for recruiting qualified bilingual personnel to meet demonstrated service needs. As part of this process, NOPD agrees to establish meaningful relationships with local and state-wide institutions and community organizations that can serve as the source of qualified bilingual applicants and facilitate outreach to such advocates; and I) implement incentives for bilingual employees to become NOPDAis, such as pay differentials, consideration in performance evaluations, or assignments. 190. NOPD agrees to translate the language assistance plan and policy into Spanish and Vietnamese, and if it becomes appropriate, other languages, and post the English and translated versions in a public area ofthe police department building, District police stations, and the PIB building, as well as online, and in any other locations throughout the City where individuals go to seek police assistance. NOPD agrees to distribute the language assistance plan and policy to a variety of community organizations serving LEP communities encountered by NOPD.
52

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 58 of 129
191. NOPD agrees to distribute its language assistance plan and policy to all staff and police personnel, and, within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, provide training to all personnel on providing language assistance services to LEP individuals. This training shall include:
a) NOPD's LEP plan and policies; and the requirements ofTitle VI and this Agreement; b) how to access NOPD-authorized telephonic and in-person interpreters; c) how to work with interpreters in the field; d) cultural diversity; and e) how to communicate with LEP individuals in commonly encountered scenarios; and basic command of Spanish or Vietnamese, for officers assigned to Districts with significant LEP populations. 192. Within 180 days of Effective Date, NOPD agrees to designate a language access coordinator who shall coordinate and monitor compliance with its language assistance plan. The language access coordinator shall assess the effectiveness and efficiency ofthe plan on an ongoing basis and shall report to the Superintendent or his designee regarding needed improvements and any accountability concerns. The Superintendent or his designee shall consider the information provided by the coordinator and respond as necessary to ensure that NOPD's language assistance plan is effective. 193. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a process of consultation with representatives of the LEP community to develop and at least annually review: implementation of the language assistance plan, including areas of possible collaboration to ensure its effectiveness; identification of additional languages that would be appropriate for translation of materials; accuracy and quality ofNOPD language assistance services; and concerns, ideas, and strategies for ensuring language access. 194. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop a process for determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs, services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP individuals. As part ofthis process NOPD shall: a) document the number ofLEP persons requiring NOPD services and their primary language; b) collect data regarding the number of times an interpreter has been used, listed by language and type ofinterpreter (telephonic or in-person); c) document the number of bilingual staff who have been evaluated for language proficiency,
53

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 59 of 129
by language, job title, and level of proficiency; and d) document use of translators, vital documents translated, and languages into which vital documents are translated.
IX. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports ofsexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA arid community partners, including the NOFJC, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Sexual Assault 195. NOPD agrees to develop and implement clear policies and procedures governing its response to reports ofsexual assault. NOPD agrees to ensure its policies and procedures on sexual assault comply with applicable law and comport with best practices and current professional standards. NOPD agrees to clearly delineate in policy the respective duties of patrol officers/first responders, sex crimes detectives, and supervisors, and to provide clear and detailed guidelines for steps at each stage ofNOPD's response to a reported sexual assault, including dispatch response, initial officer response, and on-scene and follow-up investigation. 196. Patrol officers or other first responders shall document their observations and any actions taken, including any statements of victims, witnesses, and reporting persons, in calls for service related to sexual assaults. 197. NOPD protocols for conducting initial and follow-up victim interviews shall reflect the special needs of victims who may be in crisis or suffering from trauma. 198. NOPD agrees to provide clear and detailed guidelines for on-scene and follow-up investigation, including identifying, locating, and interviewing witnesses and suspects; collaborating with victim advocates; collecting evidence; special procedures for drug-facilitated sexual assaults; and documentation. 199. NOPD agrees to establish protocols for forensic examinations of both victims and suspects, as well as evidence preservation and crime scene management in the sexual assault context. These protocols shall be established in collaboration with the New Orleans SART and
54

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 60 of 129
shall incorporate the recommendations of the National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination recommended protocols governing police procedure. 200. Through its on-going training, NOPD agrees to keep officers apprised, and shall inform victims, ofavailable services, referrals, or other assistance. 201. Special Victims Section supervisors shall provide direct supervision oftheir subordinates by:
a) responding to assist officers investigating felony sexual assaults as defined under the Louisiana Criminal Code of Procedure: RS 14:42, Aggravated Rape; RS 14:42.1, Forcible Rape; RS 14:43, Simple Rape; RS 14:43.1, Sexual Battery; RS 14:43.2, Second Degree Sexual Battery; and RS 14:43.3, Oral Sexual Battery. b) building relationships and enhancing cooperation with victim advocates and forensic examination programs, both to respond to and reduce the risk of sexual assault; c) continually seeking and creating opportunities for training to enhance investigators' skills; d) closely reviewing investigative reports and dispositions; e) demonstrating a detailed understanding ofvictim issues and setting clear expectations of detectives regarding their treatment of victims; f) incorporating victim interactions and services into subordinates' perfonnance evaluations; and g) following up all investigative leads generated from CODIS hits developed as a result of testing ofthe evidence in the case. 202. NOPD agrees to track all CODIS hit outcomes with the CODIS Hit Outcome Program software provided by National Institute of Justice. This software will provide accountability and outcome data for review by appropriate bodies, and provide feedback to the DNA Database Unit maintained by the Louisiana State Police. 203. NOPD agrees to incorporate IACP recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices into its training, and update procedural requirements annually, to reflect changes in policy and Jaw and developments in research and best practice. 204. In addition to annual in-service training, NOPD agrees to provide initial training for sex crimes detectives of no fewer than 32 hours. This training shaH include: a) realistic dynamics of sexual assault, including issues related to response to trauma and delayed reporting;
55

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 61 of 129
b) overcoming the perception of false/tmfounded allegations to successfully investigate nonstranger sexual assault; c) drug and alcohol facilitated sexual assault; d) skills-based training on interviewing, including taped mock victim interviews; e) report-writing; t) discovery; and g) collection, preservation, and submission of evidence in sexual assault cases, including selecting the evidence to be submitted for testing. 205. NOPD agrees to provide detailed initial and recruit training on responding to sexual assault for patrol officers and other first responders of no fewer than four hours, and ongoing annual in-service training. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate fact-based scenarios involving stranger and non-stranger sexual assault into recruit and in-service training on topics such as general investigation, crime scene preservation, and report writing. NOPD's training on sexual assault shall include: a) realistic dynamics of sexual assault, including issues related to response to trauma and delayed reporting; b) report writing; c) victim interviewing; and d) initial assessment of victim and crime scene. 206. During the first year ofthis Agreement, neither patrol officers nor detectives shall code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category without the express written approval of the ISB Special Victim Section Commander and the ISB Criminal Investigations Division Commander. Following this period, patrol officers shall not code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category. Any decision by a detective to do so shall receive close secondary review and shall be approved in writing by an immediate Sex Crimes unit supervisor and the Division commander. 207. NOPD agrees to train supervisors and investigators in the Sex Crimes unit in the proper definitions and application of"unfotmded," "false," and "baseless" classifications in the context ofsexual assault. The immediate supervisor in the Sex Crimes Unit and the Special Victims Section Commander shall closely review and approve in writing any decision to classify a report
56

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 62 of 129
as "unfounded." NOPD agrees to track each of these conclusions separately in NOPD's CCMS and publicly report them on at least a semi-annual basis. 208. NOPD agrees to separately track all reports of felony sexual assault, including drugfacilitated sexual assault, sexual assaults involving persons with disabilities rendering them unable to consent, sodomy, and male victims of sexual assault. NOPD agrees to collect data on the final disposition ofsexual assault investigations, including whether an arrest was made and whether the DA charged the suspect or rejected the case and, if so, the reason for the rejection if the DA provides a reason. NOPD agrees to track this data in NOPD's CCMS. NOPD further agrees to make a reasonable effort to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the DA to track information related to the outcomes of domestic violence cases including whether the case was ultimately dismissed, resulted in a plea agreement, or tried, and the final outcome ofthe trial. 209. NOPD agrees to track in its Justice Trax Laboratory Information Management System the evidence collected and whether it was submitted to a crime lab for testing. Where evidence is not submitted, NOPD agrees to record in this System the justification for this decision. 210. NOPD agrees to work with the DA, community service providers, and other stakeholders to develop and implement a SART and collaborative SART agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date, to provide a coordinated and victim-centered approach to sexual violence. NOPD agrees to comply with its obligations under the SART collaborative agreement. 211. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop a mechanism to select and permit a committee of representatives from the community, including rape crisis advocates, service providers, and/or legal providers, to review, on a semi-annual basis: (1) sexual assault investigations disposed ofas "unfounded;" (2) a random sample ofopen sexual assault investigations with the approval of the DA; and (3) after the first year of this Agreement, reported sexual assaults placed in a miscellaneous or non~criminal category. NOPD agrees to develop a protocol to ensure that feedback and recommendations from this committee are incorporated into policies, general training, remedial training for specific officers or detectives, and the decision to re-examine and re~open investigations, if warranted. This mechanism shall include appropriate safeguards to protect ongoing criminal or administrative investigations, confidential or privileged information, or personal information that is protected from disclosure by applicable laws.
51

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 63 of 129
B. Domestic Violence ·
212. NOPD agrees to delineate the respective duties of communications staff, patrol officers/first responders, District-level detectives, domestic violence detectives, and supervisors in its domestic violence policies and procedures and agrees to provide clear and detailed guidelines for steps at each stage ofNOPD's response to a report ofdomestic violence, including dispatch response; initial officer response, including entry procedures; and on-scene and follow-up investigation. 213. NOPD agrees to prioritize victim safety and protection at each stage ofits response to a report ofdomestic violence and provide, through the New Orleans Integrated Domestic Violence Protocol, clear guidelines for on-scene and follow-up investigation, including identifying, locating, and interviewing suspects and witnesses, including child witnesses; assessment ofthe crime scene; evidence collection, including documentation ofvictim injuries; and seizure of weapons. 214. NOPD agrees to discourage dual arrests ofoffenders and victims. NOPD agrees to provide guidance on when dual arrests are permissible and require supervisory approval to effectuate a dual arrest. NOPD policies shall require the custodial arrest of domestic violence offenders who violate the terms of a valid and outstanding protection order, and those the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a domestic violence offense. NOPD training shall include training on how to identify the primary aggressor. 215. NOPD agrees to continue to participate in the operation, development, and sustainability of the NOFJC; work in co-location with other civil and criminal agencies and community-based organizations; and support a centralized, multi-agency Family Justice Center model in the handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases in New Orleans. 216. NOPD agrees to collaborate with and refer all victims to the NOFJC. 217. NOPD agrees to continue close collaboration with the DA and community providers to ensure that policies and protocols remain victim-centered and effective. To facilitate this collaboration, the Superintendent or a designee at the level of Commander or above shall meet with the Executive Committee ofthe NOFJC on at least a quarterly basis to discuss and coordinate policy, training, and other aspects ofNOPD's response to domestic violence. NOPD agrees also to designate, and include at this quarterly meeting, an NOPD employee at the rank of sergeant of above responsible for reviewing and coordinating NOPD's policies on domestic
58

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 64 of 129
violence. This designated officer shall review NOPD's domestic violence policies for internal consistency, and consistence with the Integrated Protocol developed by the NOFJC, the Blueprint for Safety, and any similar plan adopted by the City. He or she shall closely collaborate with NOFJC and the DA to strengthen the Integrated Protocol and/or the Blueprint for Safety to ensure that they comport with best practices, NOPD policies, and this Agreement, and to review and update policies at least annually, or as necessary. He or she also shall be responsible for identifying training needs with respect to implementing NOPD domestic violence policies, the Integrated Protocol, and/or the Blueprint for Safety. 218. NOPD agrees to assign sufficient staffto the DVU at the NOFJC to permit detectives to review, on a weekly basis, District-level reports on incidents of domestic violence, for the purpose of identifying training needs and tracking the Districts' response to domestic violence. The DVU shall have sufficient staff to conduct appropriate follow-up investigation on felony offenses, including incidents where a weapon was involved or the victim suffered serious bodily injury. This follow-up investigation shall include field work and coordination with the DA's Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit. NOPD shall assign sufficient detectives to the DVU based on the calls for service. 219. NOPD agrees to offer training on domestic violence that incorporates IACP recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices and to annually update the training to reflect changes in policy, law, and developments in research and best practice. 220. NOPD agrees to provide at least 4 hours of initial and recruit training on domestic violence for all officers, and ongoing annual in-service training. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate fact-based scenarios involving domestic violence into recruit and in-service training on such topics as general investigation, crime scene preservation, and report writing. NOPD's training on domestic violence shall include:
a) NOPD's policies and procedures on domestic violence, including the Integrated Protocol and/or Blueprint for Safety; b) dynamics of domestic violence; c) identifying the primary aggressor; d) responding to and investigating strangulation in the context of domestic violence; e) interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects;
59

--·- -- · ·-------·····--·- - -·- · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 65 of 129
f) report-writing; and g) discovery. 221. NOPD agrees to provide domestic violence detectives with initial training of no fewer than 32 hours, and ongoing annual in-service training. This training shall include advanced, skills-based instruction in evidence collection; victim assistance; interviewing, including taped mock victim interviews; and other topics. 222. NOPD agrees to track dispositions ofdomestic violence investigations, including arrests and acceptance or refusal by the DA. NOPD further agrees to make a reasonable effort to enter into Memoranda of Understanding with appropriate agencies to track information related to the outcomes ofdomestic violence cases, including whether the case was ultimately dismissed, resulted in a plea agreement, or tried, and the final verdict or outcome of the trial. NOPD agrees to track dual arrests and domestic violence arrests by gender. NOPD agrees to publicly report this data on at least an annual basis
X. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT NOPD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, and to engage constructively with the community, to ensure collaborative problem-solving and ethical and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Community and Problem Oriented Policing 223. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to reassess its staffing allocation and personnel deployment, including its use ofspecialized units and deployment by geographic area, to ensure that core operations support community policing and problem-solving initiatives, and shall agree to modify any deployment strategy found to be incompatible with effective and community-oriented policing. 224. NOPD agrees to deploy an adequate number and distribution of officers to ensure that all neighborhoods have a regularly assigned officer who is familiar with the geographic area, its issues, problems, and community leaders; engages in problem identification and solving activities with the community members around the community's priorities; works proactively with other city departments to address quality of fife issues; and is not assigned to answer calls to service absent exigent circumstances.
60

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 66 of 129
225. NOPD agrees to ensure its mission statement reflects its commitment to community-oriented policing and agrees to integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems. 226. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date and annually thereafter, NOPD agrees to provide 8 hours ofstructured annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all officers, including supervisors, managers and executives. This training shall include:
a) methods and strategies to improve public safety and crime prevention through community engagement; b) scenario-based training that promotes the development of new partnerships between the police and community, targeting problem solving and prevention; c) leadership, ethics, and interpersonal skills; d) community engagement, including how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations, including youth, immigrant, and LGBT communities; e) problem-oriented policing tactics, including a review of the principles behind the problem solving framework developed under the "SARA Model" (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment), which promotes a collaborative, systematic process to address issues of the community, including safety and quality of life; f) conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and g) cultural awareness and sensitivity training. Cultural awareness training shall be designed and delivered in cooperation with City Human Relations Commission staffand community representatives selected by the Commission. 227. NOPD agrees to continue to support community groups in each District (e.g., NONPACC) and to meet regularly with the communities each District serves. In addition, within 240 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement mechanisms to measure officer outreach to a broad cross-section ofcommunity members, with an emphasis on youth outreach, to establish extensive problem-solving partnerships and develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and trusting relationships with this broader cross-section of stakeholders. NOPD agrees to develop and implement partnerships to provide immediate and ongoing support to families of victims of homicides and other serious crimes.
61

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 67 of 129
228. Within 240 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop measurements to assess the effectiveness of its community partnerships and problem-solving strategies, including the effectiveness ofthe Community Coordinating Sergeant program. NOPD agrees to prepare a publicly available report on at least a quarterly ba5is detailing its community policing efforts in each District, including developing community partnerships, participating in public meetings; and its problem-solving activities, including specific problems addressed and steps taken by NOPD and the community toward their resolution. This report also shall identify obstacles faced and recommendations for future improvement: At least annually, NOPD agrees to issue a publicly available report that summarizes these problem-solving and community policing activities. 229. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to remake the COMSTAT meeting. The COMSTAT meeting will use the underlying collection and reporting of accurate and meaningful data regarding crime trends and other public safety measures to drive discussion of community-policing successes and challenges. NOPD agrees to ensure the COMSTAT meeting includes discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them. NOPD agrees to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific deployment analysis to enable COMSTAT to better support and measure community and problem-solving policing efforts. B. Biennial Community Survey 230. Within 180 days ofthe Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey ofmembers of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions ofNOPD and of public safety. 231. To conduct the biennial community survey, the Monitor shall retain an individual or entity, to be approved by DOJ, that shall:
a) develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality ofpolice-citizen encounters; b) design, conduct, and analyze baseline and subsequent biennial surveys of a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees; c) review and consider prior law enforcement surveys in New Orleans and other cities, as well as current or recent concerns in New Orleans, in designing the survey;
62

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 68 of 129
d) engage in informal conversations with New Orleans residents, NOPD officers and command staff, and DOJ representatives, and observe community meetings; e) ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys are designed to capture a representative sample ofNew Orleans residents, including members ofeach demographic category; f) conduct the survey in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, as necessary, to ensure representation of the entire New Orleans community; and g) formally discuss the survey methodology with NOPD supervisors and DOJ and consider these opinions in the development ofthe initial survey and in making improvements to subsequent surveys. 232. NOPD and the City agree to cooperate with the design and conduct of the survey by, for example, helping to organize focus groups ofofficers and obtaining and providing previous survey instruments and data. 233. The report ofthe baseline survey and subsequent biennial surveys shall be publically distributed and available.
XI. RECRUITMENT
NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group ofhighly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, agree to ensure that NOPD's recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below.
A. Comprehensive Recruitment Program
234. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD, working with Civil Service, agrees to develop a written, strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants. The strategic recruitment plan shall clearly identify the duties and goals ofNOPD's Recruitment Unit. The recruitment plan shall include specific strategies for attracting applicants with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese (because these languages are spoken by a significant segment ofthe New Orleans Community), and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section ofthe community.
63

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 69 of 129
235. The Recruitment Unit staff shall be publicly identified, shall work with Civil Service, and shall interact directly with candidates applying for NOPD positions. NOPD agrees to develop a protocol that includes specific criteria for assigning officers to the Recruitment Unit, including officers' work history, disciplinary history, length of employment at NOPD, and demonstrated commitment to community-oriented policing. 236. NOPD agrees to staff the Recruitment Unit sufficiently to permit the Unit to fulfill its responsibilities as set out in this Agreement, NOPD policy, and applicable law. 237. NOPD agrees to train all current and new staffassigned to the Recruitment Unit on recruiting a qualified and diverse workforce, including training on employment law. NOPD agrees to establish specific performance criteria to evaluate recruitment staff effectiveness in hiring increasing numbers of high quality recruits. 238. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a system for psychological screening and assessment of all NOPD recruit candidates, and to set criteria to ensure that only individuals suitable for policing are accepted into NOPD training academy. 239. The Recruitment Unit shall conduct affirmative outreach to a broad group ofcommunity members (e.g., college and university initiatives, military outreach, the PCAB, and community meetings in each District), and shall create and foster relationships with those organizations to enhance recruitment efforts. 240. NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to ensure that the dates and times of the officer recruit application period and testing dates are advertised widely. 241. Within 180 Days ofEffective Date, NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to establish standardized qualifications and guidance for who may serve on a recruit applicant interview panel. Eligibility for serving on a recruit applicant interview panel shall include a review of the officer's internal disciplinary file and personnel file. 242. NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to ensure that interview panelists and all officials who interview potential NOPD recruits receive specialized training in the goals ofNOPD recruitment and hiring, including emphasis on integrity, community policing, and nondiscriminatory policing. 243. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD and the City agree to work with Civil Service to establish a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists. The scoring
64

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 70 of 129
system shall be used to assess recruit applicants immediately following the applicant's interview. These assessment forms shall be maintained by the Recruitment Unit. 244. The Recruitment Unit will annually report its recruiting activities and outcomes, including the number of applicants, interviewees, and selectees, and the extent to which the Recruitment Unit has been able to recruit applicants with needed skills, such as problem-solving abilities or fluency in Spanish or Vietnamese, and a discussion of any challenges to recruiting highly qualified applicants.
XII. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and corrunitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Training Coordination and Planning 245. The Training Division shall be the central coordination point for all training, including: recruit training academy; field training; and all in-service training, including firearms and other use of force training; roll-call training; supervisory training; tactical and task force training; and all elective training. 246. NOPD' s Training Division Commander shall be responsible for overseeing all NOPD training, including recruit academy; field training; all in-service training, and for ensuring that training is delivered consistent with NOPD's written training plan. 247. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a full-time DepartmentWide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, and designate a single training coordinator in each District and central organizational unit to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division. 248. Within 120 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to establish a Training Advisory Committee that shall include stafffrom the NOPD Training Division, NOPD field personnel, high·level NOPD command staff(Deputy Superintendent or above), a community representative
65

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 71 of 129
from the Police-Community Advisory Board, two representatives from area colleges and universities, an outside police professional with expertise in model training practices, a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney's office, the USAO, and the City Attorney's Office. 249. Within 270 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD's Training Advisory Committee shall develop a written training plan for NOPD's recruit academy, field, and in-service training, to ensure that recruits, officers, and civilian personnel are trained to effectively and lawfully carry out their duties in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plan shall comport with best practices and the requirements ofthis Agreement and shall:
a) define responsibilities and authority of personnel involved in managing, supervising, and implementing training; b) identify training priorities and broad training goals; c) delineate an industry-recognized, systematic approach to training development that includes the following concepts: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This approach should enable NOPD to identify and validate job tasks in sufficient detail to derive learning objectives, which, in turn, should drive the selection of instructional strategies and assessments; d) develop instructional strategies that incorporate active learning methods such as problem-solving and scenario-based activities, based on current theories of learning; e) address program administration policies, classroom/facility use, and instructor training and development; and f) establish the frequency and subject areas for recruit and in-service training. 250. Upon the Superintendent's approval ofthe training plan, NOPD shall submit the training plan to the Monitor and DOJ. The Monitor shall review the training plan and provide the Parties with written comments within 30 days ofreceipt thereof. DOJ shall have 30 days from receipt of the Monitor's comments on the training plan to determine whether the training plan is consistent with the requirements ofthis Agreement and to make its decision on approval. DOJ shall not unreasonably withhold approval. 251. The Training Advisory Committee shall annually review and update NOPD's training plan. To inform this update, the Training Advisory Committee shall conduct a needs assessment, taking into consideration: trends in misconduct complaints; problematic uses offorce; analysis
66

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 72 of 129
of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels ofNOPD; input from members of the community, including community concerns; court decisions; research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual District needs; and any changes to Louisiana or federal law or to NOPD policy. B. Curriculum Development 252. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall create and staff a full-time position of Curriculum Director to establish and oversee a formal training curriculum development and assessment process consistent with the training plan described above. The Curriculum Director shall ensure that curricula and related lesson plans are based on learning objectives that are directly linked to validated job tasks. 253. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a lesson plan template that will be used for all training courses at NOPD. At a minimum, each template shall include: course title; course overview; date lesson plan was created or updated; learning objectives; prerequisites (if any); course length; required materials, equipment, and facilities; safety measures required (if applicable); testing/certification, and reference list. The lesson plan shall describe content and instructional strategies in sufficient detail to ensure consistent delivery of instruction by different instructors. 254. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement recruit academy curricula that comport with NOPD's training plan and comprehensively address the subject areas listed in paragraph XIX.E., below. 255. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement inservice curricula that comport with NOPD's training plan and that comprehensively address each of the subject areas in which this Agreement requires in-service training. 256. The Curriculum Director shall review all training curricula, lesson plans, and procedures for consistency, quality, accuracy, currency, completeness, and compliance with applicable law and NOPD policy. The Curriculum Director shall ensure that a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats, are incorporated into all training. The Curriculum Director shall also ensure that all curricula, lesson plans, instructor's qualifications, and testing materials are reviewed by the Training Advisory Committee and, where appropriate, persons external to NOPD with expertise in the relevant lesson areas.
67

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 73 of 129
257. NOPD shall submit all new or revised training curricula and lesson plans for training required by this Agreement to the Monitor and DOJ for review and comment at least 90 days prior to the scheduled date oftraining delivery. The Monitor shall review the curricula or lesson plans and provide the Parties with written comments within 30 days of receipt thereof. Within 30 days ofreceipt ofthe Monitor's comments, DOJ shall have the right to review and comment on whether the curricula and lesson plans are consistent with and incorporate the requirements of this Agreement and applicable law. C. Instructor Selection 258. NOPD agrees to implement the Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Protocols for all staff assigned to the training division and all adjunct instructors within NOPD. NOPD agrees that minimum qualification requirements for Academy staff shall include:
a) Baccalaureate Degree or exceptional practical law-enforcement or subject matter expertise with at least six years of combined NOPD service; b) Successful completion ofthe FBI Instructor Development Course; and c) No ' sustained' PIB investigations within 24 months of applying for an Academy position or a pending 'open' investigation at time of application. 259. NOPD agrees to actively seek out and retain qualified instructors, including instructors from outside NOPD, with expertise in areas such as law and investigations, as necessary, to supplement the skills of in-house training staffand adjunct instructors. Additionally, NOPD agrees to incorporate experts and guest speakers such as judges, prosecutors, including representatives ofthe USAO, crime victims, and community members, to participate in courses at the Training Academy. 260. NOPD agrees to ensure that all new and current Training Division staff and NOPD adjunct instructors receive 40 hours of initial training, including training on effective teaching, adult-learning techniques, curriculum development, and annual in-service training. NOPD agrees to require and ensure that instructors use only curricula and lesson plans that have been approved by the Training Division. NOPD agrees to further require that instructors use a variety ofadult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats. 261. Annually, NOPD agrees to evaluate the performance of Training Division staff and all adjunct or other training instructors and shall remove staff and instructors who do not meet
68

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 74 of 129
NOPD criteria. NOPD agrees to docwnent each evaluation using an established set ofcriteria to be developed pursuant to this Agreement. D. Training Evaluation 262. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a process that provides for the collection, analysis, and review ofdata to document the effectiveness of training and to improve future instruction, course quality, and cwriculum. This process shall measure and document student reaction to and satisfaction with the training they received~ and student learning as a result oftraining, including the extent to which students are applying the knowledge and skills acquired in training to their jobs. 263. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement documented and approved testing policies and procedures to ensure that that all testing is valid, reliable, and fair. Both knowledge-based and performance-based tests shall be designed, developed, administered, and scored according to established professional standards ofpractice. All tests shall be job-related, testing knowledge and skills required for successful job performance. E. Recruit Training Academy 264. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a recruit training program that comports with NOPD's written training plan described above, and that reflects the requirements of this Agreement. 265. NOPD agrees to modify the amount and content ofrecruit academy training to comport with its written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD agrees to provide recruits with at least 880 hours ofacademy instruction. 266. In addition to the training requirements reflected in the substantive provisions of this Agreement, NOPD agrees to ensure sufficient recruit academy instructional hours in the following specific areas:
a) appropriate use of force; b) stops, searches, and arrests; c) bias-free policing and community/problem-solving policing; d) investigations, including crime scene investigations and investigative techniques; e) ethics, including preventing and reporting misconduct and peer intervention; f) crisis intervention;
69

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 75 of 129
g) crowd control, including consistent application of field-force tactics and crowd management; h) report writing; i) recognizing, taking, and responding to allegations of misconduct received in the field; j) statutory law, including definitions of specific offenses, and scenario-based exercises to determine the specific elements of offenses; and k) how to communicate with LEP individuals in commonly encountered scenarios. 267. NOPD agrees to structure the recruit training academy so that instruction is delivered in logical progression, to ensure that each skill or unit builds on previous skills or units. NOPD agrees to schedule training modules so that recruits become proficient in fundamental tasks before progressing to more advanced skills and activities. 268. In addition to inclusion in separate training modules, NOPD agrees to incorporate training on constitutional and statutory law; ethical decision making; community policing; deescalation of force; and bias-free policing throughout the course of the recruit training academy. NOPD agrees to reinforce legal concepts in the context of instruction on interviewing and interrogation, crime scene processing, and report writing. 269. NOPD agrees to use problem-based learning and scenario-based exercises throughout the course ofthe recruit academy. NOPD agrees to ensure that scenario-based exercises have specific training objectives, and to evaluate achievement in multiple areas, such as constitutional and statutory law, officer safety, NOPD procedures, and report writing. NOPD agrees to require recruits to produce actual reports and statements at the end of scenario-based exercises. 270. NOPD agrees to intersperse skills training in areas such as driving, firearms, and defensive tactics throughout the course ofthe recruit training academy, to allow recruits to develop and reinforce these skills over time. 271. NOPD agrees to not add recruit candidates after the first week ofthe recruit training academy. 272. To ensure continuity of training, NOPD agrees to minimize interruptions to recruit academy training for the purpose ofstaffmg special events and other functions. This does not preclude the use of recruits for Mardi Gras-related service functions or in case of emergencies. 273. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to ensure that the recruit academy is sufficiently staffed to effectively train recruits, and that the deployment of recruit academy staff
70

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 76 of 129
to cover patrol shifts or other duties does not disrupt training activities. This does not prohibit academy staff from working 'Mission' patrols. Recruit classes shall not exceed 30 candidates per class. 274. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide recruits and officers with appropriate training facilities to ensure adequate access to safe and effective training. The Parties agree that such training can be provided without constructing any new facilities. F. Field Training Program 275. Within 365 days of Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a fieldtraining program for recruit academy graduates that comports with NOPD's written training plan and this Agreement. NOPD's field training program shall follow academy training and shall be at least 16 weeks. 276. NOPD's policies and procedures on field training shall delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. Only highly qualified officers shall serve as FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. NOPD agrees to establish formal eligibility criteria for FTOs and Field Training Sergeants based on their performance evaluations, previous superior performance as police officers, and complaint and disciplinary histories. FTO appointments will be subject to review for reappointment at the Training Division Commander's discretion. District commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with the Training Academy staff, to remove a field-training officer from the FTO program. 277. NOPD agrees to ensure that all current and new FTOs and Field Training sergeants receive at least 40 hours of initial supervisory-level training and annual in-service training in the following areas: management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication. FTOs and Field Training sergeants shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, their proficiency in managing recruits and subordinates, practicing and teaching community-oriented policing, and solving problems effectively. NOPD shall maintain current documentation ofFTOs' evaluations and training. 278. NOPD agrees to ensure that recruits in the field-training program are trained in a variety of geographic areas within New Orleans; in a variety of shifts; and with several FTOs. 279. Annually, NOPD agrees to review and evaluate the performance ofFTOs and Field Training Sergeants, with re-certification dependant on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Training Division staff.
71

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 77 of 129
280. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy, and suggestions for changes to Academy training based upon their experience in the FTO program. NOPD agrees to consider feedback and to document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action. 281. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to review and revise its FTO participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates. 282. NOPD's training advisory committee shall conduct, within 365 days of the Effective Date, a study of the feasibility of implementing a Police Training Officer model that would incorporate community- and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning method of teaching. IfNOPD and the City find it feasible, NOPD and the City agree to implement this program. G. In"Service Training 283. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a mandatory annual in-service training program that comports with NOPD's written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD agrees to provide at least 64 hours of in-service training to each officer pursuant to this program within 365 Days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and annually thereafter. In-service training will be comprised of a 40-hour core curriculum and 24 hours of additional elective training. Specialized training for officers in certain units or assignments (such as the initial40-hour training for specialized CIT officers)) shall be considered additional elective training. 284. NOPD agrees to create core-training requirements for the following positions: officers; command staff; lieutenants and sergeants; detectives; narcotics investigators; and specialized units. 285. NOPD agrees to plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive roll-call training program. Roll-call training shall be provided at the beginning of each shift. Roll-call training shall include special topics selected by the Training Division Commander or District Commanders that address officer safety, readiness, community concerns, or departmental procedural matters.
72

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 78 of 129
H. Training Records 286. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a system that will allow the Training Division to electronically track, maintain, and report complete and accurate records of current curricula, lesson plans, training delivered, and other training materials in a centralized electronic file system. This system shall, at a minimum:
a) maintain training records for each recruit and each sworn member of the Department; b) record the course description, duration, curriculum, date and location oftraining, name of instructor, and the personnel who completed the training; and c) docwnent officers who did not complete required training and all corrective actions taken. 287. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement accountability measures, including disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective action, to ensure that all officers successfully complete all required training programs in a timely manner. 288. NOPD agrees to document all training provided to or received by NOPD officers, whether required or otherwise. Officers shall sign an acknowledgement ofattendance or digitally acknowledge completion of training. NOPD shall report training delivered and received annually. This report shall include a: a) description of each course, including a summary of the subject matter; the duration, date and location, the name of the instructor, and the number of persons who completed the training; and b) listing of all officers who completed in-service, recruit, specialized, or elective training; and c) listing of officers who did not complete required training and the corrective action taken for each officer.
XIII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below. A. Department~Wide Health and Wellness Program 289. NOPD agrees to further develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that comports with best practices and current professional standards, which include: readily accessible confidential counseling services with both direct and indirect
73

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 79 of 129
referrals; critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling; peer counseling; and stress management training. 290. Within 180 days, NOPD agrees to develop a department-wide mental and physical health and wellness program that:
a) provides and specifies access to mental health services for officers following trawnatic incidents; b) ensures that in situations where an officer is referred for a fitness-for-duty evaluation to assess psychological fitness, the evaluation is performed by a provider external to NOPD; c) ensures that the roles, duties, and responsibilities ofNOPD mental health professionals are properly delineated to avoid risk ofconflict and increase officer confidence in NOPD provided mental health services; d) provides access to consistent counseling and treatment by mental health professionals; and e) fosters participation and compliance by ensuring confidentiality under federal and state privacy laws; and f) incorporates mental health services for NOPD officers and their families into NOPD's crisis response and emergency preparedness planning. 291. NOPD agrees to compile and distribute a list of internally and externally available mental health services to all officers and employees. NOPD should periodically consult with community and other outside service providers to maintain a current and accurate list of available providers. 292. NOPD agrees to train management and supervisory personnel in officer support services protocols to ensure wide availability and use of officer support services; and agrees to
incorporate discussion of currently available officer support services, and how to access those
services, into annual officer in-service training. 293. NOPD agrees to involve mental health professionals in developing and providing academy and in-service training on mental health stressors related to law enforcement and the mental health services available to officers. 294. NOPD agrees to involve mental health professionals in officer training on use offorce, to address such topics as: peer intervention by fellow officers to stop the use of excessive force; the interaction ofhuman perception and threat assessment; decision making under highly charged conditions; psychological methods of situation control; patrol de-escalation and defusing
74

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 80 of 129
techniques that not only provide a tactical response, but also respond to the fear stimulated by confrontations; anger management programs; and training in verbal control and communication, including conflict resolution.
XIV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS NOPD agrees to ensure that officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process, and that officers who lead effectively and ethically are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD shall further ensure that poor performance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is reflected in officer evaluations so that NOPD can identify and effectively respond. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD, working with Civil Service, agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Performance Evaluations 295. Within twelve months of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to develop and implement an NOPD-specific system that comports with best practices and the requirements ofthis Agreement to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing, and critical police fimctions, on both an ongoing and annual basis. 296. As part of this program, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to establish a formalized system documenting annual performance evaluations ofeach officer by the officer's direct supervisor that shall include assessment of: a) community engagement and communication with the public as appropriate to assignment; b) use of community-policing and problem-solving strategies as appropriate to assignment; c) civilian commendations and complaints; d) disciplinary actions; e) compliance with policies on usage of sick leave and other leave; t) compliance with policies on secondary employment; g) safety (e.g., POST officer safety standards and vehicle operations); h) training; i) report writing; and j) decision-making skills;
75

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 81 of 129
297. Annual performance evaluations shall be based upon all work performed during the specific rating period. The officer's current direct supervisor shall complete the performance evaluation. 298. Performance evaluations shall include a narrative by the supervisor that discusses any areas in which the officer's performance needs to improve, and areas ofparticular growth and achievement during the rating period. 299. As part ofthe annual performance review process, supervisors shall meet with the employee whose performance is being evaluated to discuss the evaluation. In addition, supervisors shall meet with their subordinates on an ongoing basis to discuss their performance and shall document the supervisor's ongoing efforts and communications regarding officer performance challenges and areas of growth. 300. Supervisors shall complete training consistent with best practices on how to effectively evaluate officer performance. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, and as part of initial supervisory training, supervisors shall be required to complete at least four hours of training, focused on how to effectively evaluate officer performance. This training is in addition to any training on the mechanics of how to complete employee performance evaluations. The performance evaluations for each supervisor (whether first-line or commander) shall include assessment of the supervisor's ability and effectiveness in conducting the supervisory reviews as required by this Agreement, including monitoring, deterring, and addressing misconduct by officers they supervise. 301. NOPD agrees to hold supervisors of all ranks accountable for conducting timely, accurate, and complete performance evaluations of their subordinates.
B. Promotions
302. Within twelve months of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to develop and implement fair and consistent promotions practices that comport with best police practices and the requirements ofthis Agreement and result in the promotion of officers who are both ethical and effective. NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to provide clear guidance on promotional criteria, and to prioritize effective, constitutional, and community-oriented policing as criteria for promotion. 303. NOPD agrees to request that Civil Service remove from the promotional eligibility list any officer whose history does not strongly indicate that the officer is likely to be ethical and
76

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 82 of 129
effective in the position to which he or she is being considered for promotion. Factors to be considered in making this assessment include:
a) effective use of community-policing strategies; b) number of sustained and not sustained complaints; c) number and circumstances of uses offorce, including any found out ofpolicy and use of force complaints; d) disciplinary history; e) problem-solving skills; f) interpersonal skills; g) education; and h) support for departmental integrity measures. 304. NOPD agrees to work with Civil Service to establish specific criteria for disciplinary findings, which shall make an officer presumptively ineligible for promotion for a certain time period. Officers with pending investigations or disciplinary action in a matter alleging serious misconduct shall not be eligible for promotion. 305. The City agrees to work with Civil Service to create opportunities to be placed on the promotional list at least every two years.
XV. SUPERVISION NOPD and the City agree to ensure that an adequate number ofqualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below. A. Duties of Supervisors 306. NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers. Close and effective supervision requires that supervisors: respond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers' Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support
77

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 83 of 129
to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each ofthese duties. 307. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor. 308. Task force and narcotics supervisors shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill. Investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap. 309. District Platoon Patrol supervisors shall be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers ofthat platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill. 310. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. On duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units. 311. Within 270 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. NOPD shall ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent non-acting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks. 312. District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command. All NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement. 313. NOPD shall hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness oftheir supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-
78

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 84 of 129
disciplinary corrective action~ or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process~ as appropriate. B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training 314. NOPD agrees to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. All current supervisors shall receive 200 hours of mandatory supervisory training within two years ofthe Effective Date. NOPD shall receive credit for professional police leadership training being provided in 2012 to current NOPD supervisors. All officers becoming supervisors within two years ofthe Effective Date shall receive 160 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. All officers becoming supervisors after two years ofthe Effective Date shall receive 80 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. In addition to this initial supervisory training, NOPD agrees to require each supervisor to complete at least 40 hours of supervisor-specific training annually thereafter. In-service training for supervisors, including commanders, shall provide necessary updates and refreshers, as well as training in new skills. 315. NOPD's supervisory training program shall include instruction in the following topics:
a) techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices; b) de-escalating conflict, including through peer intervention when necessary; c) evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-based description, and how to identify "pat," "boilerplate," or conclusory language that is not explained by specific facts; d) investigating officer uses of force; e) responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct; f) operation of supervisory tools such as the EWS, mobile recording equipment, and AVL; g) burdens of proof, interview techniques, and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant, or witness credibility, to ensure that investigative findings, conclusions, and recommendations are unbiased, uniform and legally supported; h) evaluating officer performance as part ofNOPD's annual performance evaluation system; i) fostering positive career development and imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions and non-disciplinary corrective action; j) building community partnerships and guiding officers on same; and k) incorporating integrity-related data into COMSTAT reporting.
79

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 85 of 129
C. Early Warning System 316. The City and NOPD agree to develop, implement, and maintain an EWS to support the effective supervision and management ofNOPD officers and employees, including the identification ofand response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible. NOPD will regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance ofNOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts. 317. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the City and NOPD agree to create a plan for the implementation ofthe EWS, which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance ofthe EWS. The City and NOPD agree to maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users. 318. The City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a protocol setting out which fields shall include historical data; the historical start date for each field; deadlines for inputting data related to current and new information; and the individuals responsible for capturing and inputting data. NOPD is not expected to include any historical data prior to January 1, 2006. 319. The City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a protocol for using the EWS and information obtained from it. The protocol for using the EWS shall address data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, identifying officers for intervention, supervisory use, supervisory/departmental intervention, documentation and audit. Among protocol requirements, the City and NOPD agree to include:
a) comparative data analysis, including peer group analysis, to identify patterns of activity by individual officers and groups of officers; b) NOPD commander and supervisor review, on a regular basis, of EWS reports regarding each officer under the commander or supervisor's direct command and, at least quarterly, broader, pattern-based reports; c) NOPD commander and supervisor initiation, implementation, and assessment ofthe effectiveness of interventions for individual officers, supervisors, and units, based on assessment of the information contained in the EWS; d) an array of intervention options to facilitate an effective response to identified problems.
80

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 86 of 129
Interventions may take the form of counseling or training, or ofother supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. NOPD agrees to seek the services ofmental health professionals and others to ensure that interventions are appropriate and effective. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system~ e) specify that the decision to order an intervention for an employee or group using EWS data shall include peer group analysis, including consideration of the nature of the employee's assignment and appropriate thresholds, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category ofinformation recorded in the EWS; f) prompt review by NOPD commanders and supervisors of the EWS system records, of all officers upon transfer to their supervision or command; g) evaluation ofNOPD commanders and supervisors based on their appropriate use of the EWS to enhance effective and constitutional policing and reduce risk; and h) mechanisms to ensure monitored and secure access to the EWS to ensure the integrity, proper use, and appropriate confidentiality ofthe data 320. The EWS shall include a computerized relational database, which shall be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve: a) all uses of force, including critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; b) the number ofECW units in use; c) each canine officer's canine bite ratio; d) all injuries to persons in-custody, including in-custody deaths; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with obstructing or resisting an officer, interfering with a law enforcement investigation, or similar charges; f) all misconduct complaints (and their dispositions); g) data compiled under the stop data collection mechanism; h) all criminal proceedings initiated against an officer, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City and/or its officers or agents, resulting from NOPD operations or the actions ofNOPD personnel; i) all judicial proceedings where an officer is the subject of a protective or restraining order; j) all vehicle pursuits and traffic collisions involving NOPD equipment; k) all loss or theft ofNOPD property or equipment in the custody ofthe employee, including
81

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 87 of 129
currency, firearms, force instruments, and identification cards; 1) all interviews or interrogations in violation ofNOPD policy; m) all instances in which NOPD learns or is informed by a prosecuting or judicial authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based upon concerns about the credibility of an NOPD employee or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by an NOPD employee; n) all disciplinary action taken against employees; o) all non-disciplinary corrective action required of employees; p) all awards and commendations received by employees; q) training history, including firearm qualification and other weapon certifications, for each employee; and r) sick leave usage. 321. The EWS shall include appropriate identifying information for each involved employee (i.e., name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender). 322. The City and NOPD agree to maintain computer hardware, including servers, terminals, and other necessary equipment, in sufficient amount and in good working order to permit personnel, including supervisors and commanders, ready and secure access to the EWS system to permit timely input and review of EWS data as necessary to comply with the requirements ofthis Agreement. 323. NOPD shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the EWS for at least five years following the officer's separation from the agency except where prohibited by law. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will}?e maintained indefinitely in the EWS. On an ongoing basis, NOPD will enter information into the EWS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and shall maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner. No individual within NOPD shall have access to individually identifiable information that is maintained only within the EWS and is about an officer not within that individual's direct command, except as necessary for investigative, technological, or auditing purposes. 324. The EWS computer program and computer hardware will be operational, fully implemented, and used in accordance with policies and protocols that incorporate the requirements ofthis Agreement pursuant to an interim schedule that includes full implementation within three years of the Effective Date. Prior to full implementation of the new EWS, NOPD
82

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 88 of 129
will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns ofconduct by employees or groups ofofficers. 325. NOPD agrees to provide in-service training to all employees, including officers, supervisors, and commanders regarding EWS protocols prior to its implementation, as required to facilitate proper understanding and use ofthe system. NOPD supervisors shall be trained in and required to use the EWS to ensure that each supervisor has a complete and current understanding ofthe employees under the supervisor's command. Commanders and supervisors shall be trained in evaluating and making appropriate comparisons in order to identify any significant individual or group patterns. 326. Following the initial implementation of the EWS, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the City and NOPD may add, subtract, or modify thresholds, data tables, and fields; modify the list ofdocuments scanned or electronically attached; and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries as appropriate. NOPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval to the Monitor and DOJ before implementation to ensure it continues to comply with the intent ofthis Agreement. D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities 327. Within two years ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to maintain and operate video cameras and AVL in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras or AVL units, as necessary for reliable functioning. One-half of these vehicles will be equipped with video cameras and AVL within one year of the Effective Date. NOPD agrees to ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities. 328. NOPD agrees to develop and implement policies and procedures regarding AVL, in-car cameras, ECWs, and similar equipment that require:
a) activation of in-car cameras for all traffic stops and pursuits 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) activation of ECW cameras when the ECW's safety switch is turned off;
83

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 89 of 129
c) activation of in-car cameras, where vehicle is so-equipped, to record requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployment of drug- detection canines, and vehicle searches; d) activation of in-car cameras for incidents in which a prisoner being transported is violent or resistant; e) supervisors to review AVL, in-car camera recordings, and ECW recordings of all officers listed in any NOPD report regarding any incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, or misconduct complaints; f) supervisors to review recordings regularly and to incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers; g) NOPD to retain and preserve recordings for at least two years, or, if a case remains under investigation or litigation longer than two years, at least three years after the final disposition of the matter, including appeals; and h) an officer to notify a supervisor immediately when an event was not recorded. 329. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment. 330. Supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, ECW cameras, and similar equipment, as required by policy. Supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed. Supervisors shall refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment. 331. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations.
XVI. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers' and other NOPD employees' off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness ofNOPD employees' primary work
84

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 90 of 129
as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards, and which shall include the requirements set out below. A. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office 332. The Secondary Employment Coordinating Office ("Coordinating Office") shall have sole authority to arrange, coordinate, arrange fully-auditable payment, and perform all other administrative functions related to NOPD employees' off-duty secondary law enforcement employment (historically referred to as paid details) and shall be operated in accordance with the requirements ofthis Agreement. 333. The Coordinating Office shall be directed by a civilian with no actual conflict of interest or appearance ofconflict ofinterest. This Coordinating Office Director ("Director") shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. The Director shall be an unclassified civil servant appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, shall remain independent from actual or perceived influence by NOPD. 334. The Coordinating Office shall employ a civilian in the role of "Major Special Events" Coordinator with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. This Major Special Events Coordinator shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. This Coordinator
will report to the Director.
a) Major Special Events include Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, Essence Music Festival, French Quarter Festival, Voodoo Fest, college bowl and college championship events, professional sporting events, and other events as designated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, the City Attorney, City Council, or the Superintendent as a Major Special Event. 335. The Director's and all other Coordinating Office employees' salaries shall be independent ofthe number of off-duty secondary jobs worked or the amount ofrevenue generated by secondary employment. 336. The Coordinating Office shall be staffed with civilians with no actual conflict ofinterest or appearance of conflict of interest, and shall not have been NOPD employees within the previous two years.
85

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 91 of 129
337. The Coordinating Office shall not be located in, or immediately adjacent to, NOPD Headquarters, District Headquarters, or a District Substation. B. Coordinating Office Responsibilities 338. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, or as funding is established, the City shall develop and implement and the Coordinating Office shall maintain a searchable list ofoff-duty secondary employment opportunities, which can be accessed through either the existing NOPD employee web site or another accessible database. 339. The Coordinating Office shall maintain a roster ofNOPD employees interested in working off-duty secondary employment. 340. The Coordinating Office shall establish a rotation system that provides a fair and equitable number of secondary employment opportunities to all NOPD employees in consideration of preferences for assignment and availability. The Coordinating Office shall rotate NOPD employees working Recurring Secondary Employment positions at least every 365 days. The Director shall determine when NOPD employees may return to work for the same employer. This 365 day RSE rotation requirement shall not apply to those individual officers who regularly work recurring assignments at Major Special Event venues, schools, banks, churches, and hospitals. The Director may grant an exception to this rule if the secondary employment work being done requires unique or specialized knowledge or training. 341. The Coordinating Office shall fill all new secondary employment opportunities and temporary vacancies pursuant to written and consistently applied criteria. NOPD employees
shall not be permitted to select substitutes or allow another employee to work an assigned
secondary job in place ofthe employee. 342. The Coordinating Office shall establish an after-hours notification system, which provides them the capability of accepting information and making assignments 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. 343. The Coordinating Office shall remove NOPD employees from the secondary employment roster where the employees are performing unsatisfactorily, are under suspension, administrative reassignment, or have been charged with a crime. 344. Approval to work secondary employment is not automatically based on assignment through the Coordinating Office. Members shall also be required to comply with all NOPD
86

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 92 of 129
internal procedures governing off-duty secondary employment, including the completion of an NOPD Secondary Employment Authorization Form. 345. The Coordinating Office shall develop and implement a plan for working with NOPD to ensure that supervisors conduct in-person inspections of secondary employment sites based upon the frequency worked. Supervisory oversight at Major Special Events or larger venues, which meet minimum supervisor staffmg level requirements specified under this Agreement, shall be the responsibility of those ranking officers who were selected by the Coordinating Office to work the secondary employment assignment. The required number of supervisory officers specified under minimum staffing requirements for Major Special Events or larger venues must be present for the duration ofthe secondary employment assignment. 346. The Coordinating Office shall ensure that no NOPD employee is supervising another employee of higher rank. 347. The Coordinating Office shall be responsible for collecting and maintaining a searchable database of all secondary employment worked. This database shall be searchable by secondary employment assignment and by employee and shall identify the employee working the secondary employment, secondary employment hours, and assignment locations. This database shall maintain historic and current information on all employees' secondary employment. 348. A schedule of fees will be established by the City to offset costs associated with the coordination and required support provided through the Coordinating Office to take into account costs, including but not limited to, administrative fees, hourly wage rates, and equipment usages. The schedule offees shall be publicly available. 349. The Coordinating Office shall be responsible for the annual, public release ofthe following information:
a) The number ofNOPD employees who worked secondary employment by District and rank; b) The average number ofsecondary employment hours worked by District and rank; c) The salaries of Coordinating Office employees and the Coordinating Office's administrative operational costs; and d) The net and gross amounts of City income derived through secondary employment. 350. The Coordinating Office shall ensure that all potential employers are notified of their responsibilities, including:
87

- - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 93 of 129
a) Agreeing that individuals or entities seeking to employ off-duty NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office; b) Making all payments in advance and acknowledgement that advanced payments may be subject to forfeiture or penalty assessment associated with late cancellations; c) Agreeing to have secondary employees sign in and sign out every work day; and d) Acknowledging that they are prohibited from providing any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, beyond nominal compensation in the fonn of food or beverages, to an NOPD employee or the friend or relative of an NOPD employee in exchange for any secondary employment services provided. C. Secondary Employment Compensation 351. The Coordinating Office, working with NOPD and the City, shall develop and implement an auditable payment system that ensures that secondary employment pay is made to NOPD employees. 352. NOPD employees working secondary employment shall not be permitted to receive any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, unless such compensation, bonus, or gift, is provided through and documented by the Coordinating Office and is in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. Nominal compensation in the form of food or beverages is permitted in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. 353. Travel time to and from secondary employment shall not be compensated, unless it involves specialized patrol services or use of specialized equipment. 354. NOPD employees are not permitted to solicit secondary compensation or employment. Individuals or entities seeking to employ NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office. 355. NOPD shall advise all officers that attempting to circumvent or circumventing the secondary employment policy or the Coordinating Office shall subject officers to discipline as warranted, up to and including dismissal. D. Limitations on Secondary Employment Work 356. NOPD and the Coordinating Office shall establish a standard form by which NOPD employees can register to work secondary employment assignments. No employee shall be eligible to work secondary employment without first registering with the NOPD Compliance
88

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 94 of 129
Section and obtaining authorization from the employee's direct supervisor and unit commander. Secondary employment authorization shall be valid for one calendar year. When determining whether an NOPD employee qualifies for authorization to work secondary employment, NOPD and the Coordinating Office shall evaluate factors that include:
a) The quality ofthe employee's primary employment performance, assessed pursuant to written criteria; b) Whether the employee is an active member ofthe NOPD or grandfathered Reserve officer in good standing; c) The applicant's disciplinary record, complaint history, and work performance history; d) The applicant's level of experience; and e) Whether the employee is seeking a supervisory or non-supervisory position. Non-supervisory NOPD employees may not supervise secondary employment. 357. Only a POST certified commissioned member who has successfully completed his/her FTO training and has achieved permanent status as Civil Service "Police Officer I" may work police-related secondary employment assignments unsupervised. 358. POST certified commissioned members who completed FTO. training, but have not obtained permanent status of Civil Service "Police Officer 1/' may work secondary employment if supervised by a ranking officer at the grade of sergeant or above. 359. POST certified commissioned members hired as lateral transfers successfully completing FTO training may work authorized secondary employment unsupervised. 360. Regardless ofprior approval, members shall not engage in secondary employment while absent in the following status: sick; Injured On-Duty; Worker's Compensation; Maternity Leave; Leave Without Pay; or Suspended or under Administrative Reassignment with a restricted police commission. Members must return to full duty status and have completed a full tour of duty prior to working a secondary employment opportunity. 361. Secondary employment for City departments and agencies shall be prohibited. Instead, departments and agencies shall cover compensation for employees through authorized City reimbursement procedures. 362. In addition to the secondary employment positions prohibited under current NOPD policy, the following types of work or services shall be prohibited as secondary employment: a) Work in or for Alcoholic Beverage Outlets as defined under NOPD policy;
89

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 95 of 129
b) Private investigations~ c) Chauffeur services; except where chauffeur services to public officials, executives or celebrities is secondary to a primary purpose ofsecurity. Notwithstanding the foregoing prohibition, motorcycle escorts for chauffeur services and limousines are permitted; d) Security at sexually oriented businesses; e) Employment requiring that the employee act as a civil process server; and f) Security at pawn shops. 363. NOPD employees are prohibited from working secondary employment that conflicts with the employee's NOPD duties and ethical obligations. Prohibitions include: a) Representing anyone before any court or agency of the City, with or without compensation, on a matter in which the City is a party or has a substantial interest; b) Serving as an expert witness in his or her private capacity in any civil or criminal proceeding in which the City is a party or has a substantial interest; c) Working secondary employment during court hours while the employee is under a conflicting subpoena; d) Disclosing confidential information acquired in an official capacity to any secondary employer; e) Using on-duty time to conduct investigations or take other law enforcement action on behalf of a secondary employer, where there would be an actual conflict of interest or appearance ofa conflict of interest; f) Knowingly participating in, or soliciting the creation of, any corporation, company, trust, fund, or cooperative banking account for the purpose of billing, receiving compensation, or coordinating services of secondary employment; and g) Taking an assignment that will interrupt or occur during the employee's assigned on-duty NOPD shift. 364. Secondary employment by NOPD employees will be limited to a maximum of24 hours per seven day work week (Sunday through Saturday). Exceptions to the hour limitation may be granted for Major Special Events where manpower requirements are so intensive that sufficient resources may not be available for the safe operation of the event (e.g., Jazz Fest, Mardi Gras). Application for such an event exception will be made in advance via interoffice correspondence (NOPD Form 105) by an employee or event commander that estimates the number of hours an
90

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 96 of 129
employee can exceed the maximum threshold. The application will be forwarded through the appropriate chain of command for final approval by the Superintendent. Secondary employment in excess of the 24-hour limitation cannot be worked unless approved in advance by the Superintendent. 365. No employee, including Reserve officers, shall work more than 16 hours within a 24-hour period. (The 24 hour period begins the first time the employee reports for either regular duty or secondary employment allowing for a minimum ofeight hours of rest within each 24-hour period.) These hours are cumulative and include normal scheduled work hours, overtime, off-duty secondary employment, and outside employment. 366. Commissioned Reserve officers are allowed to register for and work secondary employment assignments through the Coordinating Office ifthey are full time active duty officers in good standing or Commissioned Reserve Officers on the Effective Date. The following further limitations and restrictions shall apply to all Reserve members, however:
a) Plain clothes secondary employment coordinated through the Coordinating Office must be approved by the Superintendent or his designee prior to allowing any Reserve officer to work in plain clothes; b) Reserve officers shall not work secondary employment for their current employer or for anyone for whom they have worked full time during any period within two years ofthe Effective Date; c) Reserve officers shall not work secondary employment during the first year after graduation from the Reserve Police Academy; d) Reserve officers who volunteer a minimum of36 hours in a calendar month are eligible to work a maximum of28 hours in secondary employment during the following calendar month (e.g., a reserve officer who volunteers 36 hours in August would be eligible to work a maximum of28 hours of secondary employment in September); e) Reserve officers who volunteer a minimum of40 hours in a calendar month will be eligible to work a maximum of 32 hours of secondary employment during the following calendar month;
t) Reserve ranking officers are not authorized to approve secondary employment. All request
forms shall be submitted to the Commander ofthe Reserve Division for approval and forwarding through the chain ofcommand;
91

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 97 of 129
g) Reserve officers shall attach a copy of their monthly time report to their secondary employment authorization request form; h) Reserve officers shall follow all policies and procedures ofNOPD, the NOPD Reserve Division and this Agreement while working secondary employment; and i) Reserve officers are prohibited from coordinating secondary employment for any member of the Department, either regular or reserve members. Reserve officers are also prohibited from individually or cooperatively coordinating secondary employment and the collection of fees for secondary employment contracted through the Coordinating Office. E. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities 367. NOPD employees seeking to work any secondary employment shall submit a signed Secondary Employment Registration Form ("Registration Form") initially and annually thereafter to the Coordinating Office. This Registration Form shall include acknowledgment that: a) the employee understands that working a secondary employment is a privilege subject to strict criteria; b) the employee represents NOPD while working secondary employment; c) the employee must abide by all NOPD policies while working secondary employment; and d) the employee may be disciplined by NOPD for policy violations committed while working secondary employment. 368. Employees working secondary employment shall have the same responsibility to carry appropriate departmental equipment (e.g., police radios) and document their activities in the same manner as if they were on-duty, including completing incident, arrest, and use of force reports, and reporting allegations of misconduct or observed misconduct. F. Secondary Employment Supervision 369. Working with NOPD, the Coordinating Office shall determine the number ofemployees and supervisors necessary to work a secondary job, considering factors that include: a) The anticipated number of people attending the function; b) Whether alcoholic beverages will be served; c) Whether the event is open to the public or is private/by invitation only; d) The location ofthe event; and e) The history of the event and employer.
92

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 98 of 129
370. The minimum supervisory requirements for any secondary employment assignment shall be:
a) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of one to four officers may be worked without a ranking officer. In these instances, the most senior officer accepts responsibility for secondary employment related notifications. Supervisory oversight shall be the responsibility of a patrol supervisor in the District of the secondary employment assignment, though officers engaged in secondary employment are expected to abide by general directions from the coordinating office; b) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of five to nine officers shall include at least one ranking officer of at least the grade of sergeant or lieutenant; c) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 10 to 14 officers shall include at least two ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant or lieutenant; d) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 15 to 19 officers shall include at least two ranking officers of at least the grade of sergeant and one supervisor of at least the grade of lieutenant; e) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of20 to 24 officers shall include at least three ranking officers of at least the grade ofsergeant and one supervisor ofat least the grade oflieutenant; f) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 25 to 29 officers shall include at least three ranking officers ofat least the grade of sergeant and two supervisors ofat least the grade of lieutenant; g) Secondary employment requiring the simultaneous or overlapping schedule of 30 officers or more shall include supervisory coverage in addition to that specified above based on the following graduated scale:
(1) One sergeant or above for every five members; (2) One lieutenant or above for every two sergeants; (3) One captain or above for every three lieutenants. 371. Sergeants and lieutenants shall be allowed to back-fill a police officer opening, but those supervisors electing to fill such a vacancy are eligible for compensation at the hourly rate
93

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 99 of 129
approved for the police officer position as negotiated between the Coordinating Office and the
employer. Captains or above shall only be allowed to fill open vacancies at a supervisory staffing level equivalent to a captain's position. 372. Supervisors shall supervise NOPD employees working secondary employment in the same manner as if they were working their primary employment. 373. The Coordinating Office will implement a system so that on-duty NOPD patrol supervisors are aware of each secondary job within that supervisor's geographical coverage area and the identity of each employee working each secondary job. 374. The Coordinating Office will implement a system so that each District shall have a current and historical record of all secondary employment worked in the District.
XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below. A. Reporting Misconduct 375. NOPD agrees to continue to require any Department employee who observes or becomes aware ofany act ofmisconduct by another employee to report the incident to a supervisor or directly to PIB for review and investigation. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a supervisor, the supervisor shall immediately document and report this information to PIB. Failure to report or document an act of misconduct or criminal behavior is an egregious offense and shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination of employment. B. Response to Internally Discovered Infractions 376. NOPD agrees to develop and establish protocols that require supervisors to take appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action when the supervisor becomes aware ofan infraction committed by an officer that is not reported from outside the Department and does not require an immediate PIB notification (e.g., improper use of sick leave, improper
attire). The infraction and the supervisor's response shall be reported to PIB within five business
94

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 100 of 129
days. PIB shall review the report and supervisory response to determine whether additional investigation is required and to evaluate the imposed discipline or corrective action to determine whether the supervisory response was fair and consistent with NOPD disciplinary protocols.
C. Preventing Retaliation
377. The City and NOPD agree to expressly prohibit all forms ofretaliation, including discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation ofmisconduct. Within 270 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, the City, through PIB, shall review NOPD's anti-retaliation policy and its implementation. This review shall consider the alleged incidents of retaliation that occurred or were investigated during the reporting period, the discipline imposed for retaliation, and the supervisors' performance in addressing and preventing retaliation. Following such review, the City shall modify policy and practice as necessary to protect individuals, including other NOPD officers and employees and civilians, from retaliation for reporting misconduct. Retaliation for reporting misconduct or for cooperating with an investigation of misconduct is an egregious offense and shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination of employment.
D. Staffing, Selection, and Training Requirements
378. NOPD agrees to continue to have a civilian serve as PIB commander. 379. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that a sufficient number ofwell-trained staffis assigned and available to complete and review thorough and timely misconduct investigations in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD and the City further shall provide sufficient resources and equipment to ensure that thorough and timely criminal and administrative misconduct investigations are conducted. ICOs shall report directly to the PIB Commander on PIB-related matters. 380. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to review the staffmg ofPIB and ensure that misconduct investigators and commanders possess excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an officer committed misconduct. Officers with a sustained complaint of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force, false arrest, unlawful search or seizure, sexual harassment, discrimination, or dishonesty shall be presumptively ineligible fo r assignment toPffi.
95

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 101 of 129
381. Officers promoted to the rank of Lieutenant shall, within a reasonable time frame, serve a rotation in PIB. 382. All personnel conducting NOPD officer misconduct investigations, whether assigned to PIB, a District, or elsewhere, shall receive at least 40 hours of initial training in conducting officer misconduct investigations within 365 days of the Effective Date, and shall receive at least eight hours oftraining each year. This training shall include instruction in:
a) investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview teclmiques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; surveillance; and data and case management; b) the particular challenges ofadministrative police misconduct investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation; properly weighing credibility of civilian witnesses against officers; using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements; and the proper application ofthe preponderance ofthe evidence standard; c) relevant state, local, and federal law, including state employment law related to officers and the rights of public employees, including but not limited to La. Rev. Stat. 40:2531, "Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation," and local Civil Service Commission requirements, as well as criminal discovery rules such as those set out in Garrityv. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), andBral(yv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and d) NOPD rules and policies, including the requirements ofthis Agreement, and protocols related to criminal and administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct. 383. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a plan for conducting regular, targeted, and random integrity audit checks, or "sting" audits, to identify and investigate officers engaging in at-risk behavior, including: unlawful stops, searches, and seizures (including false arrests); discriminatory policing; use of excessive force; secondary employment abuse; failure to take a complaint failure to report misconduct or complaints; or other patterns ofmisconduct or potentially criminal behavior.
E. Complaint Information
384. Within 365 days ofthe Effective Date, the City and NOPD agree to develop and implement a program to ensure broad knowledge throughout the New Orleans community about
96

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 102 of 129
how to make misconduct complaints, and the availability ofeffective mechanisms for making misconduct complaints. The requirements below shall be incorporated into this program. 385. The City and NOPD agree to make complaint forms and informational materials, including brochures and posters, available at appropriate government properties, including, at a minimum, NOPD headquarters, District stations, NOPD and City websites, City Hall, courthouses within New Orleans, all public libraries, the IPM, the Orleans Public Defenders, and at the offices or gathering places of community groups. Individuals shall be able to submit misconduct complaints through NOPD and City websites and these websites shall include complaint forms and information regarding how to file misconduct complaints. 386. NOPD agrees to post and maintain a permanent placard at all police facilities describing the external complaint process. The placards shall include relevant contact information, such as telephone numbers, email addresses, and internet sites. Officers shall provide the officer's name and badge number upon request. If an individual indicates that he or she would like to make a complaint or requests a complaint form, the officer shall immediately inform his or her supervisor who will respond to the scene to assist the individual in providing appropriate forms and/or other available mechanisms for filing a misconduct complaint. 387. Complaint forms and related informational materials shall be made available and posted in Spanish, Vietnamese, and English. F. Complaint Intake, Classification, Assignment, and Tracking 388. NOPD agrees to, within 365 days of the Effective Date, revise policy and train all officers and supervisors to ensure that they properly handle complaint intake, including how to
properly provide complaint materials and information and the consequences for failing to take
complaints. 389. The refusal to accept a misconduct complaint, discouraging the filing of a misconduct complaint, or providing false or misleading information about filing a misconduct complaint, shall be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination. 390. NOPD agrees to accept all misconduct complaints, including anonymous and third-party complaints, for review and investigation. Complaints may be made in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail. Any LEP individual who wishes to file a complaint about an NOPD officer or employee shall be provided with a complaint form in English, Spanish, or Vietnamese, as appropriate, and the appropriate
97

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 103 of 129
translation services required to file a complaint, and such complaints will be investigated in accordance with this Agreement. 391. All officers and employees who receive a misconduct complaint in the field shall immediately inform a supervisor ofthe misconduct complaint so that the supervisor can ensure proper intake ofthe complaint. All misconduct complaints received outside ofPIB shall be documented and submitted to PIB by the end ofthe shift in which it was received. 392. Upon notification by the City Attorney's Office, the DA, or judges or magistrates, NOPD agrees to ensure that allegations ofofficer misconduct are identified and investigated as misconduct complaints. The City Attorney's Office agrees to forward copies ofall civil suits alleging misconduct by an NOPD officer to PIB. 393. NOPD agrees to track, as a separate category ofmisconduct complaints, allegations that an officer has in any way interfered with a civilian's First Amendment right to observe, record, and/or verbally comment on the perfonnance of police duties in an area open to the public, or where the individual has a right to be, such as a person's home or business. Improper interference with this right includes improperly detaining or arresting individuals for interfering with a law enforcement investigation, disorderly conduct, or similar charges. 394. NOPD agrees to track, as a separate category ofmisconduct complaints, allegations of discriminatory policing, along with characteristics of the complainants. NOPD agrees to ensure that complaints of discriminatory policing are captured and tracked appropriately. 395. Within 365 days ofthe Effective date, PIB shall develop and implement a centralized numbering and tracking system for all misconduct complaints. Upon the receipt ofa complaint, PIB shall promptly assign a unique numerical identifier to the complaint, which shall be provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. Where a misconduct complaint is received in the field, a supervisor shall obtain the unique numerical identifier and provide this identifier to the complainant. 396. NOPD's centralized numbering and tracking system shall maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status ofall misconduct complaints, from initial intake to final disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the interim status and final disposition of the investigation. This system shall be used to determine the status ofcomplaints and to confirm that a complaint was received, as well as for periodic
98

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 104 of 129
assessment of compliance with NOPD policies and procedures and this Agreement, including requirements on the timeliness of administrative investigations. 397. Where a supervisor receives a misconduct complaint in the field alleging that misconduct has just occurred, the supervisor shall gather all relevant information and evidence and provide this information and evidence to PIB. This information includes the names and contact information for all complainants and witnesses, the names of all NOPD officers and employees involved in or witnessing the alleged misconduct, and any available physical evidence, such as voluntarily provided video or audio recordings, or documentation ofthe existence ofsuch recordings where the witness chooses not to provide the recording. The supervisor shall take photographs ofapparent injuries, or the absence thereof, unless the complainant/subject objects or declines. 398. Within three business days of the receipt of a misconduct complaint, PIB shall determine whether the complaint will be: assigned to an ICO or supervisor; retained by PIB for investigation or referred to the appropriate outside agency; and whether it will be investigated criminally. 399. NOPD agrees to develop and implement a complaint classification protocol that is allegation~based rather than anticipated outcome-based to guide PIB in determining where a complaint should be assigned. This complaint classification protocol shall ensure that PIB or an authorized outside agency investigates allegations including:
a) serious misconduct, including but not limited to: criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft; b) misconduct implicating the conduct ofthe supervisory or command leadership ofthe subject officer; and c) subject to the approval by the Deputy Superintendent ofPIB, allegations that any commander requests be conducted by PIB rather than the subject officer's District/Division. 400. Where NOPD or the City determines that an externally-generated complaint contains no allegations of misconduct, the complaint shall receive a disposition of "exonerated" or "unfounded" and include for tracking purposes an indication that it was a complaint regarding service or otherwise contained no allegations of misconduct. NOPD agrees to cease the use of "No Violation Observed," ''NIMS," or similar dispositions ofmisconduct allegations. NOPD
99

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 105 of 129
will use the classification "No Formal Investigation Merited" to resolve only the following types of complaints:
a) complaints disputing traffic citations, except that allegations of misconduct contained in such complaints (e.g., racial profiling, illegal search, excessive force) will be classified and investigated according to its merits; b) complaints alleging a delay in police service such as patrol response or detective follow-up, where the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the delay is due to workload. However, if the preliminary investigation discloses that misconduct such as negligence rather than workload caused the delay, the complaint will be classified according to its merits; c) complaints regarding off-duty officer conduct of a civil nature, unless the alleged conduct or its effects constitute misconduct or have a substantial nexus to the officer's employment; and d) complaints in which the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the subject officer does not work for NOPD or where the identity of the subject officer cannot be determined, despite the best efforts ofPIB. 401. A misconduct complaint investigation may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident; whose conduct led to the injury of a person; who authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident or complaint; or who witnessed or was involved in the incident leading to the allegation of misconduct. G. Investigation Timeframe 402. NOPD and the City agree to make good faith efforts to have state law amended to permit a reasonable timeframe for the completion ofadministrative investigations ofofficer misconduct
so that such investigations can be thorough, reliable, and complete.
403. All administrative investigations conducted by PIB shall be completed within the time limitations mandated by state law and within 90 days ofthe receipt of the complaint, including assignment, investigation, review and fmal approval, unless granted an extension as provided for under state law or Civil Service exemption, in which case the investigation shall be completed within 120 days. Where an allegation is sustained, NOPD shall have 30 days to detennine and impose the appropriate discipline, except in documented extenuating circumstances, in which
case discipline shall be imposed within 60 days. All administrative investigations shall be
100

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 106 of 129
subject to appropriate interruption (tolling period) as necessary to conduct a concWTent criminal investigation or as provided by law.
H. Collection of Evidence
404. Officer misconduct investigations shall be as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings. The misconduct complaint investigator shall interview each complainant in person, absent extenuating circumstances, and this interview shall be recorded in its entirety, absent specific, documented objection by the complainant. 405. All witnesses, including officers witnessing or involved in an incident that becomes the subject ofa misconduct complaint, shall provide a written statement regarding the incident or be interviewed as described below. 406. Where the alleged misconduct is particularly serious or interviews ofthe subject officer(s) or other witnesses may be necessary to sufficiently investigate the allegation, the investigator shall conduct an in-person interview. The interview shall be recorded in its entirety, absent, in the case of non-officer witnesses, specific documented objection. 407. Each officer, witness, and complainant shall be interviewed separately. A NOPDAI not involved in the underlying complaint will be used when taking statements or conducting interviews ofany Vietnamese or Spanish speaking LEP complainant or witness. 408. The misconduct investigator shall seek to identify all persons at the scene giving rise to a misconduct allegation, especially all NOPD officers. The investigator shall note in ·the investigative report the identities ofall officers and other witnesses who were on the scene but assert they did not witness and were not involved in the incident. The investigator shall conduct further investigation of any such assertions that appear unsupported by the evidence. 409. All misconduct investigation interview recordings shall be stored and maintained in a secure location within PIB. 410. NOPD agrees to require officers to cooperate with administrative investigations, including appearing for an interview when requested by an NOPD or Inspector General investigator and providing all requested documents and evidence. Supervisors shall be notified when an officer under their supervision is summoned as part of an administrative investigation, and shall facilitate the officer's appearance, absent extraordinary and documented circumstances. 411. Ifat any time during complaint intake or investigation the investigator determines that there may have been criminal conduct on the part ofany officer or employee, the investigator
101

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 107 of 129
shall immediately notify the PIB commander. The PIB commander shall immediately notify the Superintendent, the DA and/or USAO, and the Monitor ofthe initiation of a criminal investigation. The subject officer shall not be compelled to provide a statement to administrative investigators where there is a potential criminal investigation or prosecution of the officer, until the remainder of the investigation has been completed, unless after consultation with prosecuting agency (e.g., DA or USAO) and the PIB commander, such compulsion is deemed appropriate by the Superintendent. NOPD and the City agree to consult with the DA to develop and implement protocols to ensure that the criminal and administrative investigations can be conducted in parallel as appropriate and are kept separate after a subject officer has provided a compelled statement. 412. Nothing in this Agreement or NOPD policy shall hamper an officer's obligation to provide a public safety statement regarding a work related incidentor activity. NOPD agrees to make clear in policy and training that all officer statements in incident reports, arrest reports, use offorce reports, and similar documents, and statements made in interviews such as those conducted in conjunction with NOPD's routine use of force review and investigation process, are part ofeach officer's routine professional duties.
I. Analysis of Evidence
413. In each investigation, NOPD shall consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations based upon that evidence. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will NOPD disregard a witness' statement merely because the
witness has some connection to the complainant or because of any criminal history. NOPD shall
make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. 414. The resolution of any misconduct complaint must be based upon the preponderance of the evidence. A misconduct investigation shall not be closed simply because the complaint is withdrawn or because the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide additional information beyond the initial complaint. In such instances, the investigation shall continue as necessary within the allowable investigation timeframes established under this Agreement to resolve the original allegation(s) where possible based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found
102

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 108 of 129
guilty of an offense shall not be the deciding factor as to whether an NOPD officer committed the alleged misconduct, nor shall it justify discontinuing the investigation.
415. The misconduct investigator shall explicitly identify and recommend one of the following
dispositions for each allegation of misconduct in an administrative investigation: a) "Unfounded," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did not occur or did not involve the subject officer; b) "Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur~ c) "Not Sustained," where the investigation is unable to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged misconduct occurred; or d) "Exonerated," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate NOPD policies, procedures, or training.
416. The PIB commander shall accept the investigator's recommended disposition and the
Superintendent shall approve the disposition, unless the disposition is unsupported by a preponderance ofthe evidence or additional investigation is necessary to reach a reliable finding. Where the disposition is unsupported by a preponderance ofthe evidence, the PIB Commander may correct the disposition or order additional investigation, as necessary.
417. In addition to determining whether the officer committed the alleged misconduct,
administrative investigations shall assess and document whether: (a) the police action was in compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and (d) the incident suggests that NOPD should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training. This information shall be shared with the relevant commander(s) who shall document the commander's disagreement or agreement with these findings, refer any recommendations to the appropriate individual to implement the recommended change, document the implementation ofthese recommendations, and return the documentation to PIB.
J. Integrity of Investie:ative File and Evidence 418. Division/District-Level investigation reports and all related documentation and evidence
shall be provided to PIB immediately upon completion and approval by the appropriate supervisor ofthe investigation, but no later than three business days.
103

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 109 of 129
419. All investigation reports and related documentation and evidence shall be securely maintained in a central and accessible location until the officer who was a subject ofthe complaint has severed employment with NOPD. K. Communication with Complainant 420. Each misconduct complainant will be kept informed periodically regarding the status of the investigation. The complainant will be notified of the outcome of the investigation, in writing, within ten business days of the completion ofthe investigation, including regarding whether any disciplinary or non-disciplinary action was taken. L. Discipline Process and Transparency 421. NOPD agrees to ensure that discipline for sustained allegations ofmisconduct will be based on the nature ofthe allegation and defined and consistent, mitigating and aggravating factors, rather than the identity ofthe officer or his or her status within NOPD or the broader community. NOPD and the City agree to develop and implement procedures to ensure that discipline is fair and consistent. 422. NOPD agrees to use a disciplinary matrix that:
a) establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation; b) increases the presumptive discipline based both on an officer's prior violations ofthe same or other rules; c) sets out defmed mitigating or aggravating factors; d) requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing; e) provides that NOPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition ofdiscipline; and f) provides that NOPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed. 423. NOPD and the City agree to establish a unified system for reviewing sustained findings and assessing the appropriate level of discipline pursuant to NOPD's disciplinary matrix, in order
to facilitate consistency in the imposition of discipline. All disciplinary decisions shall be
documented, including the rationale behind any decision to deviate from the level ofdiscipline set out in the disciplinary matrix.
104

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 110 of 129
424. NOPD and the City agree to develop and establish written policies and procedures to ensure that the City Attorney's Office provides close guidance to NOPD at the disciplinary stage to ensure that NOPD's disciplinary decisions are as fair and legally defensible as possible. 425. The City agrees to request the Civil Service Commission to, within 90 days of the Effective Date, post online its full decisions related to NOPD discipline in a timely manner. M. Annual Report 426. PIB shall include in its annual report a summary ofeach misconduct complaint, including a description ofthe allegation, the final approved disposition, and any discipline imposed. PIB's annual report shall also include aggregate misconduct complaint data showing the number of each type ofcomplaint and the number and rate of sustained cases after final approval, and shall provide an analysis ofthis data that identifies trends and concerns and docwnents NOPD's response to the identified trends and concerns. The PIB and IPM shall coordinate and confer with each other in collecting, analyzing, and reporting this data to avoid or minimize duplication of efforts or resources.
XVIII. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT To ensure comprehensive, effective, and transparent oversight ofNOPD, NOPD and the City agree to develop, implement, and maintain systems that are meant to be sustained after the completion ofthis Agreement. To facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, these oversight systems shall ensure that improper incidents, practices, or trends, are identified and corrected in an equitable and timely manner. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below. A. Data Collection and Public Reporting 427. All NOPD audits and reports related to the implementation of this Agreement shall be publicly available via website and at the Police Department, City Hall, and other public locations, to the fullest extent pennissible under law. 428. Within 30 days of its implementation, each NOPD policy, procedure, and manual, including those created pursuant to this Agreement, shall be posted online and otherwise made publicly available, unless NOPD documents a reasonable security reason for keeping the policy, procedure, or manual private. Where a portion of a manual may not be suitable for public availability, NOPD agrees to make the remainder ofthe manual publicly available.
105

--·--·· --··- · · ·- ··· ··- - -·----·- - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 111 of 129
429. NOPD shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities, as permitted by law. B. United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group 430. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and implement a system of formal coordination between a command-level NOPD official and the DA, municipal and state court judges, the Orleans Public Defenders, the FBI, the USAO, and the IPM. This criminal justice coordination group shall be convened by the USAO and shall meet monthly to share regular feedback regarding the quality ofNOPD arrests and indicia of misconduct; to refer specific allegations ofmisconduct for investigation; and to receive an update on the status of previous referrals. 431. The NOPD command-level official shall be accountable for documenting feedback and referrals received; ensuring that operational changes based upon this feedback are considered and made as appropriate; ensuring that all allegations of misconduct are investigated; and providing an update each month to the USAO-convened criminal coordination group regarding the status ofinvestigations of previously referred allegations ofmisconduct, and the status ofconsideration of operational changes as a result offeedback received from the group. C. District Community Outreach Programs and Meetings 432. Within 180 days ofthe Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a Community Outreach and Public Information program in each NOPD District. 433. The Community Outreach and Public Information program shall include at least one semi-annual open meeting in each ofNOPD ' s eight Districts for the first year of this Agreement, and one meeting in each District annually thereafter. These open meetings shall be led by the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent and shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement; NOPD's progress meeting these requirements; and address areas of community concern related to public trust and constitutional policing. At least one week before such meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using earned media opportunities. In determining the locations of the meetings, NOPD shall consider factors such as easy access to public transportation and child care.
106

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 112 of 129
434. The Community Outreach and Public Information meetings shall include summaries of all pertinent audits and reports completed pursuant to this Agreement and inform the public of any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. 435. For at least the first two years of this Agreement, every NOPD officer and supervisor assigned to a District shall attend at least two community meetings (e.g., NONPACC and other meetings with residents, business and religious groups) per year in the geographic area to which the officer is assigned. D. Police-Community Advisory Board 436. DOJ acknowledges that NOPD and community representatives have acted jointly to create a PCAB to facilitate regular communication and cooperation between the Department, the City, and community leaders, including youth leaders, such as through the development of a community advisory panel and the collaborative development of policing strategies and priorities. 437. NOPD agrees to work collaboratively with PCAB to develop and implement public safety strategies that respect and reflect each commwrity's public safety priorities and concerns about particular police tactics. To the extent specified below, NOPD agrees to seek PCAB's assistance, counsel, and input to build community consensus on potential recommendations in areas including the following:
a) community policing strategies; b) accountability for professional/ethical behavior by individual police officers; c) special task forces that meet high priority community need; d) central policy changes, where applicable, that improve quality of life; e) resource allocations to meet high priority, difficult issues; f) strategies for a qualified and diverse workforce; g) providing information to the community and conveying feedback from the community to NOPD; and h) ways to provide data and information, including information about NOPD's compliance with this Agreement, to the public in a transparent and public-friendly format, to the greatest extent allowable by law.
107

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 113 of 129
438. NOPD further agrees to participate in quarterly meetings scheduled by PCAB; to allow the meeting agenda to be determined by the PCAB; and to have command/executive level staff representation present at all regularly scheduled meetings. E. Community-Based Restorative Justice Project 439. NOPD and the City agree to participate in a community-based restorative justice project. NOPD, the City, and DOJ will work to identify an entity to fund and administer this project. The aim of this project shall be to help remedy mistrust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community and create an environment for successful problem-solving partnerships. F. Office of the Independent Police Monitor 440. This Agreement in no way diminishes the authority and oversight provided by the IPM pursuant to city ordinance and the related Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the IPM and NOPD. 441. NOPD and the City agree to provide the IPM ready and timely access to the information necessary to fulfill its duties. The IPM shall have all access to confidential information, including all protections and authority of state law, as does New Orleans' Office of Inspector General. 442. NOPD and the City agree to abide by the November 10, 2010, Memorandum of Understanding between the NOPD and the IPM. This MOU is hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
443. In determining the timing and content of its reviews and audits, the IPM will coordinate
with the Monitor and NOPD to minimize duplication of effort, recognizing that overlapping or redundant audits may be necessary on occasion to assess the quality and reliability of various internal and external oversight mechanisms.
XIX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT A. Role of the Monitor 444. The Monitor shall assess and report whether the requirements ofthis Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD. 445. The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders ofthe Court, consistent with this Agreement. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred
108

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 114 of 129
by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent. 446. In order to assess and report on the Defendant's implementation of this Agreement and whether implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews, audits, and assessments specified below, and such additional audits, reviews, and assessments as the Monitor or the Parties jointly deem necessary to determine whether this Agreement has been implemented as required. B. Compliance Reviews and Audits 447. The Monitor shall conduct compliance reviews or audits as necessary to determine whether the City and NOPD have implemented and continue to comply with the material requirements ofthis Agreement. Compliance with a material requirement ofthis Agreement requires that the City and NOPD have: (a) incorporated the requirement into policy; (b) trained all relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to the requirement; and (c) ensured that the requirement is being carried out in actual practice. Compliance reviews and audits shall contain the elements necessary for reliability and comprehensiveness. Compliance reviews and audits may be conducted using sampling and compilation data as consistent with reliability and comprehensiveness. Outcome Assessments in Section XIX.C. may not require a review ofall NOPD data on a specific statistic or category.
C. Outcome Assessments
448. In addition to compliance reviews and audits, the Monitor shall conduct assessments to measure whether implementation of this Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing. These outcome assessments shall include collection and analysis of the following outcome data:
a) Use of Force measurements, including: (1) Rate of force used per arrest by NOPD overall and by force type, geographic area (i.e., zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity; (2) Canine bite ratio; (3) Rate of force complaints that are sustained and rate that are not sustained, overall and by force type; geographic area (i.e., zone), source of complaint (internal or external), type of arrest, age, race, gender and ethnicity; (4) Uses of Force that were found to violate policy overall and by force type, geographic area (i.e., zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender and ethnicity;
109

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 115 of 129
(5) Number and rate of Use of Force administrative investigations/reviews in which each finding is supported by a preponderance ofthe evidence~ and (6) Number of officers who frequently or repeatedly use force, or have more than one instance of force found to violate policy. b) Stop, Search, and Arrest measurements, including: (I) Number and rate ofarrests for which there is documented reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e., zone), type ofarrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity; (2) the DA's acceptance and refusal rates of arrests made by NOPD and reasons for refusals, when made available by the DA, including those factors and information indicating that a failure to prosecute was due to the quality of officer arrests or concerns regarding officer conduct, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e. zone), type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity; and (3) Number and rate of searches that result in a finding of contraband, overall and broken down by geographic area (i.e., zone) type ofarrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity. c) Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement measurements, including: (1) Number and variety ofcommunity partnerships, including particular partnerships with youth; (2) homicide clearance rate; (3) Comparative response time between LEP and non LEP individuals seeking assistance from NOPD and change in response time to LEP individuals.; (4) Accurate classification of reports of sexual assault and domestic violence; and (5) Clearance rate of sexual assault and domestic violence cases, overall and broken down by whether the case was cleared by arrest or by exception, including accuracy of clearance type. d) Recruitment and Training measurements, including: (1) Number of highly-qualified recruit candidates; (2) Officer and agency reports of adequacy of training in type and frequency; and
110

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 116 of 129
(3) Role of insufficient training reflected in problematic incidents or by performance trends. e) Officer Assistance and Support measurements, including: (1) Availability and use of officer assistance and support services; and (2) Officer reports ofadequacy of officer assistance and support. f) Performance Evaluation and Promotion measurements, including: (1) Promotions of qualified candidates with a history of ethical decision-making; and (2) Uses offorce found to be unreasonable, misconduct complaints sustained and not sustained, and other performance-related indicators for supervisors/commanders promoted pursuant to the requirements ofthis Agreement, and for the units these supervisors/commanders command. g) Supervision measurements, including: (1) Initial identification of officer violations and performance problems by supervisors, and effective response by supervisors to identified problems. h) Secondary Employment measurements, including: (1) Policy and legal violations related to secondary employment. i) Accountability measurements, including: (1) Number of misconduct complaints, and whether any increase or decrease appears related to access to the complaint process; (2) Rate of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded misconduct complaints; (3) Number and rate of misconduct complaint allegations supported by a preponderance of the evidence; (4) Number of officers who are subjects of repeated misconduct complaints, or have repeated instances of sustained misconduct complaints; (5) Arrests/summons of officers for on or off-duty conduct; (6) Criminal prosecutions of officers for on or off-duty conduct; and (7) Number and nature of civil suits against NOPD officers and amount of judgments or settlements against the City or NOPD for civil suits filed against NOPD officers for work-related conduct.
111

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 117 of 129
449. In conducting these outcome assessments the Monitor may use any relevant data collected and maintained by NOPD (e.g., crime trend pattern analysis), the Office of the Inspector General, or the IPM, provided that it has determined, and the Parties agree, that this data is reasonably reliable and complete. D. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology 450. Within 90 days of assuming duties as Monitor, the Monitor shall develop a plan for conducting the above outcome assessments and compliance reviews and audits, and shall submit this plan to the Parties for review and approval. This plan shall:
a) clearly delineate the requirements of the Agreement to be assessed for compliance, indicating which requirements will be assessed together; b) set out a schedule for conducting outcome measure assessments for each outcome measure at least annually, except where otherwise noted, with the first assessment occurring within 12 months of the Effective Date; c) set out a schedule for conducting a compliance review or audit ofeach requirement of this Agreement within the first two years of the Agreement, and a compliance review or audit of each requirement at least annually thereafter. 451. Within 120 days of assuming duties as Monitor, the Monitor shall review and recommend any changes to the Outcome Assessment measurements set out in section XIX.C, above, that the Monitor deems useful in assessing whether implementation ofthe Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing The Parties shall adopt any recommendations upon which they agree. If the Parties disagree whether to adopt a particular outcome measurement, the Party seeking adoption may seek Court resolution. 452. Where the Monitor recommends and the Parties agree, the Monitor may refrain from conducting a compliance audit or review of a requirement previously found to be in compliance by the Monitor pursuant to audit or review, or where outcome assessments indicate that the outcome intended by the requirement has been achieved. 453. At least 90 days prior to the initiation of any outcome measure assessment or compliance review or audit, the Monitor shall submit a proposed methodology for the assessment, review, or audit to the Parties. The Parties shall submit any comments or concerns regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitor within 45 days of the proposed date of the assessment, review, or
112

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 118 of 129
audit. The Monitor shall modify the methodology as necessary to address any concerns or shall inform the Parties in writing of the reasons it is not modifying its methodology as proposed. E. Review of Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations 454. City and NOPD shall provide each investigation of a serious use of force or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint investigation (i.e., criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft), to the Monitor before closing the investigation or communicating the recommended disposition to the subject of the investigation or review. The Monitor shall review each serious use of force investigation and each serious misconduct complaint investigation and recommend for further investigation any use offorce or misconduct complaint investigations that the Monitor determines to be incomplete or for which the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Monitor shall provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete or inadequately supported by the evidence. The Superintendent shall determine whether the additional investigation or modification recommended by the Monitor should be carried out. Where the Superintendent determines not to order the recommended additional investigation or modification, the Superintendent will set out the reasons for this determination in writing. The Monitor shall provide recommendations so that any further investigation or modification can be concluded within the timeframes mandated by state law. The Monitor may coordinate with the IPM in conducting these use of force and misconduct investigation reviews. F. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance 455. The Monitor may make recommendations to the Parties regarding measures necessary to ensure timely, full, and effective implementation of this Agreement and its underlying objectives. Such recommendations may include a recommendation to change>modify, or amend a provision of the Agreement; a recommendation for additional training in any area related to this Agreement; or a recommendation to seek technical assistance. In addition to such recommendations, the Monitor may also, at the request ofDOJ or the City and based on the Monitor' s reviews, provide technical assistance consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement.
113

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 119 of 129
G. Comprehensive Re-Assessment 456. Two years after the Effective Date, the Monitor shall conduct a comprehensive assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this Agreement have been achieved, and any modifications to the Agreement that are necessary for continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) ofthe requirement. This assessment also shall address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating full and effective compliance. Based upon this comprehensive assessment, the Monitor shall recommend modifications to the Agreement that are necessary to achieve and sustain intended outcomes. Where the Parties agree with the Monitor's recommendations, the Parties shall stipulate to modify the Agreement accordingly. This provision in no way diminishes the Parties' ability to stipulate to modifications to this Agreement as set out in section XIX.P, below. Nothing in this assessment shall empower the Monitor to unilaterally modify the terms of this Agreement. H. Monitor Reports 457. The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) a description ofthe work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting period; b) a listing ofeach Agreement requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date ofthe review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice; c) the methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitor and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) for any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor's recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance;
114

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 120 of 129
e) the methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) a projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the Agreement. 458. The Monitor shall provide a copy of quarterly reports to the Parties in draft form at least 10 business days prior to Court filing and public release of the reports to allow the Parties to informally comment on the reports. The Monitor shall consider the Parties' responses and make appropriate changes, ifany, before issuing the report. I. Coordination with IPM 459. In conducting its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing its monitoring plan and review methodologies, the Monitor may coordinate and confer with the IPM to avoid duplication of effort and expenses. J. Communication between Monitor, Parties, and Public 460. The Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Parties in order to ensure effective and timely communication regarding the status ofthe implementation of and compliance with this Agreement. To facilitate this communication, the Monitor shall conduct monthly meetings that shall include participation by the Superintendent and representatives of the City Attorney's Office, and DOJ. 461. The Monitor shall meet with community stakeholders to explain the Monitor's reports to inform the public about the Agreement implementation process, and to hear community perspectives of police interactions. K. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest 462. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the Parties acting together, the Monitor, including any agent, employee, or independent contractor thereof, shall not make any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the City 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 regarding its employment or monitoring activities under this Agreement shall first be approved by DOJ and the City. 463. The Monitoring may testify as to its observations, findings, and recommendations before the Court with jurisdiction over this matter, but shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the City or any of its agents, representatives, or
115

-·- - - - - - - - -
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 121 of 129
employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor may have received knowledge ofas a result of its performance under this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance ofcontracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement. 464. 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 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 City or its departments, officers, agents, or employees. 465. 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. 466. The Monitor shall not be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out ofthe Monitor's performance pursuant to this Agreement brought by non-parties to this Agreement. L. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit 467. The City and NOPD agree to hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation of this Agreement. This unit will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, this unit will: coordinate the City and NOPD's compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City and NOPD personnel to the Monitor and DOJ, as needed; ensure that all data, documents, and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to NOPD personnel, as directed by the Superintendent or his designee. M. Implementation Assessment and Report 468. NOPD and the City agree to collect and maintain all data and records necessary to: (1) document implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, including data and records necessary for the Monitor to conduct reliable outcome assessments, compliance reviews, and audits; and (2) allow NOPD or other City entities to perform ongoing quality assurance in each of the areas addressed by this Agreement.
116

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 122 of 129
469. Within six months of the Effective Date, the City agrees to file with the Court, with a copy to the Monitor and DOJ, a status report. This report shall delineate the steps taken by NOPD during the reporting period to implement this Agreement; and the City's assessment of the status of its progress; plans to correct any problems; and response to any concerns raised in the Monitor's previous quarterly report. Following this initial status report, the City agreesto file a status report every six months thereafter while this Agreement is in effect. N. Access and Confidentiality 470. To facilitate its work, the Monitor may conduct on-site visits and assessments without prior notice to the City and NOPD. The Monitor shall have access to all necessary individuals, facilities, and documents, which shall include access to Agreement related trainings, meetings, and reviews, such as critical incident reviews, use of force review boards, and disciplinary hearings. NOPD shall notify the Monitor as soon as practicable, and in any case within 12 hours, of any critical firearms discharge, in-custody death, or arrest of any officer. 471. The City and NOPD agree to ensure that the Monitor shall have timely, full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, critical incident crime scenes, 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 City and NOPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations. 472. City and NOPD shall ensure that the Monitor has full and direct access to all City and NOPD documents and data that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents or data protected by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney~client privilege may not be used to prevent the Monitor from observing reviews and trainings such as use of force review boards, or disciplinary hearings. Should the City and NOPD decline to provide the Monitor access to documents or data based on privilege, the City and NOPD shall inform the Monitor and DOJ that they are withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis of the privilege for withholding. 473. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, DOJ and its consultants and agents shall have full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data. DOJ and its consultants and agents shall cooperate with the City and NOPD to access
117

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 123 of 129
involved personnel, facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that, consistent with DOJ's responsibilities to enforce this Agreement, minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the City and NOPD decline to provide DOJ with access to documents or data based on privilege, the City and NOPD shall inform DOJ that they are withholding documents or data on this basis and shall provide DOJ with a log describing the documents or data and the basis of the privilege for withholding. 474. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the City and NOPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the City and NOPD shall provide in a timely manner copies (electronic, where readily available) ofthe requested documents to the Monitor and DOJ. 475. The Monitor shall have access to all records and information relating to criminal investigations ofNOPD officers as permissible by law. The Monitor shall have access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by NOPD after the Effective Date. The Monitor also shall have reasonable access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications initiated after the Effective Date whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files. Where practicable, arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications initiated after the Effective Date shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files. 476. The Monitor and DOJ shall maintain all non-public information provided by the City and NOPD in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver ofany privilege or right the City and NOPD 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 ofany document. 0. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor 477. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, or additional time if agreed to by both Parties, the City and DOJ shall together select a Monitor, acceptable to both, which shall assess and report on NOPD's implementation ofthis Agreement. The Parties have agreed to use New Orleans's procurement process in selecting the Monitor. This process shall be implemented in a manner consistent with this Agreement, including the requirement that the Monitor be jointly selected and acceptable to both DOJ and the City. The Parties' Monitor selection shall be subject to the
118

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 124 of 129
approval ofthe Federal Court with jurisdiction over this Agreement. The Monitor's team shall consist of individuals of the highest ethics. 478. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within the timeframe agreed to by both parties as ofthe Effective Date, then the Court shall resolve the disagreement. 479. The Monitor shall be appointed for a period of four years from the Effective Date and the appointment shall be extended automatically should the City and NOPD not demonstrate full and effective compliance at the end of this four-year period. The extension ofthe Monitor beyond six years shall be allowed only if the Court detennines that it is reasonably necessary in order to assess and facilitate full and effective compliance with this Agreement. 480. The City shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. DOJ and the City recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the City 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 City, DOJ, and the Monitor shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court to resolve such dispute. 481. The City shall provide the Monitor with permanent office space and reasonable office support such as office furniture, telephones, access to internet, secure document storage, and photocopying. 482. The Monitor, at any time after its initial selection, may request to be allowed to hire or employ or contract with such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision ofthis Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Monitor shall notify the City and 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 City and DOJ agree to the Monitor' s proposal, the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The City or DOJ have 10 business days to disagree with the proposal. Ifthe City and DOJ are unable to reach agreement within 10 business days of receiving notice of the disagreement, the Court shall resolve the dispute.
119

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 125 of 129
483. In the event that full and effective implementation of this Agreement requires technical assistance beyond the scope of the Monitor's duties, DOJ, NOPD, and/or the Monitor shall inform the City ofthe need for technical assistance and its relation to implementation of the Agreement. The Monitor, with assistance from the City, shall arrange for the prompt initiation of the required technical assistance, to be performed by the Monitor or its agent or independent contractor; the IPM; or a separate entity. The City shall set aside $100,000.00 for this purpose, and shall allocate additional fi.mds as necessary. If either Party disagrees with the need for the technical assistance requested, the Party shall, within 15 days of being informed in writing of the requested technical assistance, inform the Court, which shall resolve the dispute. 484. Should either ofthe Parties to this Agreement determine that the Monitor's individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors have exceeded their authority or failed to satisfactorily perform the duties required by this Agreement, the Party may petition the Court for such relief as the Court deems appropriate, including replacement of the Monitor, and/or any individual members, agents, employees, or independent contractors. P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of the Agreement, and Enforcement 485. This Agreement shall become effective upon entry by the Court. 486. To ensure that the requirements of this Agreement are properly and timely implemented, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the City has achieved full and effective compliance with this Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than two years. At all times, the City and NOPD shall bear the burden of demonstrating full and effective compliance with this Agreement. DOJ acknowledges the good faith of the City in trying to address measures that are needed to promote police integrity and ensure constitutional policing in New Orleans. DOJ, however, reserves its right to seek enforcement of the provisions ofthis Agreement ifit determines that the City has failed to fully comply with any provision of this Agreement. DOJ agrees to consult with officials from the City before instituting enforcement proceedings. 487. The City and DOJ may jointly stipulate to make changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement, which shall be effective, absent further action from the Court, 45 days after a joint motion has been filed with the Court. Such changes, modifications, and amendments to this Agreement shall be encouraged when the Parties agree, or where the reviews, assessments, and/or audits of the Monitor demonstrate, that the Agreement provision as drafted is not
120

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 126 of 129
furthering the purpose of the Agreement, or that there is a preferable alternative that will achieve the same purpose. Where the Parties or the Monitor are uncertain whether a change to the Agreement is advisable, the Parties may agree to suspend the current Agreement requirement for a time period agreed upon at the outset of the suspension. During this suspension, the Parties may agree to temporarily implement an alternative requirement. The Monitor shall assess whether the suspension of the requirement and the implementation of any alternative provision is as, or more, effective at achieving the purpose as was the original/current Agreement requirement, and the Parties shall consider this assessment in determining whether to jointly stipulate to make the suggested change, modification, or amendment. 488. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties shall notify each other ofany court or administrative challenge to this Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any City court, removal to a federal court shall be sought by the Parties. 489. The City and NOPD agree to promptly notify DOJ ifany term of this Agreement becomes subject to collective bargaining consultation and to consult with DOJ in a timely manner regarding the position the City and NOPD take in any collective bargaining consultation connected with this Agreement. 490. The City and NOPD agree to require compliance with this Agreement by their respective officers, employees, agencies, assigns, or successors. Q. Termination of the Agreement 491. The City and NOPD will endeavor to reach full and effective compliance with this Agreement within four years of its Effective Date. The Parties may agree to jointly ask the Court to terminate this Agreement after this date, provided that the City and NOPD have been in full and effective compliance with this Agreement for two years. "Full and Effective Compliance" shall be defined to require sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement or sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement's outcome measures. 492. If after six years from the Effective Date, the Parties disagree whether the City has been in full and effective compliance for two years, either Party may seek to terminate this Agreement. In the case of termination sought by the City, prior to filing a motion to terminate, the City agrees to notify DOJ in writing when the City has determined that it is in full and
121

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 127 of 129 effective compliance with this Agreement and that such compliance has been maintained for no less than two years. Thereafter, the Parties shall promptly confer as to the status of compliance. If, after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any audit or evaluation that DOJ and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including on-site observations, document review, or interviews with the City and NOPD's personnel, the Parties cannot resolve any compliance issues, the City may file a motion to terminate this Agreement. If the City moves for termination ofthis Agreement, DOJ will have 60 days after the receipt of the City's motion to object to the motion. IfDOJ does not object, the Court may grant the City's motion. IfDOJ does make an objection, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and the burden shall be on the City to demonstrate that it is in full and effective compliance with this Agreement and has maintained such compliance for at least two years.
For the UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA: ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General
~sLstY= Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
122

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 128 of 129
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section

Executed on this 24th day of July, 2012

RISTY . LOPEZ ( C 473 Deputy hief COREY M. SANDERS (DC 490940) EMILY A. GUNSTON (CA 218035) Senior Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 514-6255 Fax . (202) 514-4883

123

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-1 Filed 01/11/13 Page 129 of 129 For the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS:

per'intendent New Orleans Police De

1~1 C_-1--t= ~ RICHARD F. CORTIZAS

7

City Attorney

Executed on this 24th day July, 2012

7 SO

ORDERED

this_/ _!

+~ _day

of

::ran111~

'l

_3
'201f

UNITED STATES DIST CT JUDGE

124

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff

*

NUMBER: 12-1924

v.

*

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

*

SECTION: E

De~ndant

*

* * *
ERRATA SHEET REGARDING PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

I . Caption changed to reflect case number and section assignment.

2.

~ 4: commas added before and after the phrase "and the claims arose in."

3. ~ I0: The following sentence was added at the end of the paragraph: "The assertion of

such privilege would be decided by the court with jurisdiction over the action, motion, subpoena,

or request for disclosure."

4.

~ 14.a): "a" added before "knife or stick. "

5.

~ 14.h): hanging hyphen in "well-documented" moved to next line.

6.

~ 14.r): "firearms" changed to "firearm."

7.

~ 14.vvv) (formally uuu): numbering fixed.

8.

~ 17: "policy" and "procedure" each made plural.

9.

~ 21: " s" added to two instances of"object."

10. ~ 21: "Stop" changed to "Stops" and "Arrest" changed to "Arrests."

11. ~ 22: numbering format changed to be consistent with rest of Consent Decree.

12. ~ 25: "s" added to " report" to agree with subject.

13. ~ 28: comma added after "overarching."

14. ~ 3 1: "pu rsu it" changed to "pursuits."

15. ~ 40: added "or entering a confined space, such as a crawl-space."

16. ~ 43: added "except where the suspect is hiding in a confined space (e.g. a crawl space)

and refuses to surrender." Restructured paragraph to make clearer.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 6
17. § III introductory paragraph: "effect" changed to "affect." 18. ~59: comma removed after "subject." 19. ~ 65.c): additional space added after colon. 20. ~ 65.c): "a member" changed to "members." 21. ~ 70: "SOD's" changed to " the Special Operations Division's." 22. ~ 72: hanging hyphen in "after-action" moved to next line. 23. ~ 76: comma removed after "uniform." 24. ~ 82: hanging hyphen in "force-related" moved to next line. 25. ~ 86.e): extra space removed after "statement." 26. ~ 97: comma added after "as necessary." 27. ~ 10 I: "any" added after " and." 28. ~ I0 I: commas changed to semicolons. 29. ~ 107.d): extra space before "including" removed. 30. ~ I08.d): extra space before "If' removed. 3 J. ~~ 113.t)(2) and (5): font of apostrophes changed. 32. ~ 115: "of the Effective Date" added after "Within three years." 33. ~ 117: hanging hyphen in " lecture-based" moved to next line. 34. ~ 118: hanging hyphen in "in-service" moved to next line. 35. ~ 119: extra space removed between "to" and "offer." 36. ~ 125: "or gender identity" added after "sexual orientation" to mirror language used in ~ 127. 37. ~ 132: comma added after "privacy." 38. ~ 149.t): " the apparent" added before "race" to make consistent with preceding clause. 39. ~ 151: hanging hyphen in "non-disciplinary" moved to next line. 40. ~ 154: hyphen added to "personally identifying." 41. ~ 162.b): "and" removed after semicolon. 42. ~ 162.e): semicolon moved inside quotation marks. 43. ~ 164: hanging hyphen in " pre-interview" moved to next line. 44. ~ I77: hanging hyphen in "non-enforcement" moved to next line. 45. ~ 181: numbering format changed to be consistent with rest of Consent Decree.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 6
46. ~ 187: extra space removed before " Where." 47. ~ 189.f): " Communication" changed to " Communications." 48. ~ I91: extra space removed between "and" and " this." 49. ,1 191.e): modified so that it is two separate paragraphs. " Basic command of Spanish or
Vietnamese, for officers assigned to Districts with significant LEP populations" now in~ 19l.f).
50. ~ 20 l.a): period changed to semicolon. 51. ~ 206: "ISB" changed to " Investigative Services Bureau." 52. ~ 208: hanging hyphen in "drug-facilitated" moved to next line. 53. ~ 2 I2: comma added after " policies and procedures." 54. ~ 214: " has" changed to "have. " 55. ~ 217: "of ' changed to "or." 56. ~ 220: "4"changed to "four." 57. ~ 228: semicolon changed to comma and "and" added between "developing community partnerships" and "participating in public meetings." 58. ~ 224: extra space removed between "adequate" and " number." 59. ~ 226: " 8" changed to "eight." 60. ~ 233: " publically" changed to " publicly." 61. ~ 241: extra space removed after "Civil Service." 62. ~ 242: hanging hyphen in "non-discriminatory" moved to next line. 63. ~ 245: "the" added before "recruit training academy" and "and" removed before "all inservice training." 64. ~ 247: hanging hyphen in "Department-Wide" moved to next line and capital "W" in "Department-Wide" changed to lowercase. 65. ~ 248: extra space before "two" removed. 66. ~ 248: "and" added before "a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney's office, the USAO, and the City Attorney's Office." 67. ~ 25 I: comma added after "federal law." 68. ~ 254: "XlX.E." changed to "Xli.E." 69. ~ 255: hanging hyphen in "in-service" moved to next line.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 4 of 6
70. ~ 257: extra space before " Within" removed and commas added before and after "and incorporate the requirements of." 71. ~ 267: comma removed after " progression." 72. ~ 268: hanging hyphen in "de-escalation" moved to next line. 73. ~ 275: hanging hyphen in " field-training" moved to next line. 74. ~ 279: "dependant" changed to "dependent. " 75. ~ 282: "method" changed to "methods." 76. ~ 283: extra parentheses removed. 77. ~ 295: "twelve months" changed to "365 days" 78. ~ 296.j): semicolon changed to period. 79. ~ 300: extra space removed before "supervisor." 80. ~ 302: " twelve months" changed to "365 days" 81. ~ 305: " for officers" added so that sentence reads: The City agrees to work with Civi I Service to create opportunities for officers to be placed on the promotional list at least every two years. 82. ~ 313: hanging hyphen in " non-disciplinary" moved to next line. 83. ~ 314: extra space before "All" removed. 84. ~ 319.f): comma removed after " records." 85. ~ 320: extra space removed before "or similar charges." 86. ~ 328g: "consistent with NOPD 's state-approved document retention schedule" added to clarify that provision is consistent with Louisiana law. 87. ~ 333: " and" added before "shall remain independent from actual or perceived influence by NOPD." 88. ~ 358: period removed after "FTO." 89. ~ 363.e): comma removed after "employer." 90. ~ 364: hyphen added to "seven day." 91. ~ 365: hyphen added to "24 hour." 92. ~ 367: extra space removed after "Registration." 93. ~ 367.a): "a" removed before "secondary employment." 94. ~ 376: extra space removed before " infraction."
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 5 of 6
95. ~ 381: extra spaces removed before "Officers." 96. ~ 383: extra spaces removed after "365" and between "NOPD" and "agrees." 97. ~ 383: semicolon added between "failure to take a complaint" and " failure to report misconduct or complaints." 98. ~ 41 I: comma removed after "officer." 99. ~ 414: extra space removed after " resolve." I00. ~ 420: " ten" changed to "1 0." I01. ~ 421: comma removed after "consistent." I02. ~ 426: In last sentence of paragraph, "shall" changed to "should." 103. §XVII I. Introductory Paragraph: comma removed after " trends." I04. ~ 433: " toward" added between " progress" and "meeting." I05. ~ 435: "and " added before "business and religious groups." I06. ~ 437.a): extra space removed before "community."
107. § XVIII.E: extra space removed before "Community."
I08. ~ 443: "wi ll" changed to " may." 109. ~ 445: comma added after "responsibilities." I I0. ~ 448.a): "Force" changed to "force." I I I. ~ 448.a)(4): "Force" changed to "force" and comma added after " policy. " I I2. ~ 448.b): "the" changed to "The ." I 13. ~ 448.b)(2): comma added after"i.e." I 14. ~ 448.c)(l): extra space removed before " particular." I I5. ~ 448.c)(2): " homicide" changed to " Homicide." 116. ~ 448.c)(3): hyphen added to " non LEP" and comma added after "NOPD." 117. ~ 450: changed" I2 months" to "365 days" I I8. ~ 451: period added after "constitutional policing" and extra space removed . I 19. ~ 454: "may" changed to "shall" so that sentence reads: "The Monitor shall coordinate with the lPM in conducting these use of force and misconduct investigation reviews." 120. ~ 456: "and shall submit such stipulation to the Court for approval" added after "accordingly."
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 6 of 6
12l. ~ 459: "may" changed to "shall " so that sentence reads: "Jn conducti ng its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing its monitoring plan and review methodologies, the Monitor shall coordinate and confer with the IPM to avoid duplication of effort and expenses." 122. § XJX.J: " between" changed to "Between." 123. ~ 460: comma added and "and" removed after "S uperintendent." 124. ~ 461: comma added after "reports." 125. ~ 463: "Monitoring" changed to "Monitor." 126. ~ 469: "and" removed before "the City 's assessment of the status of its progress." 127. ~ 469: "six months" changed to " I80 days" 128. ~ 470: extra space removed after " hearings." 129. ~ 477: removed: "The Parties have agreed to use New Orleans' procurement process in selecting the Monitor," as the process has been revised consistent with the Court's instruction.
6

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 59
FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE CONSENT DECREE MONITOR New Orleans, Louisiana November 29, 2013
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 59

Page 2 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?

WHAT WE DID THIS QUARTER

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
First Quarterly Report November 2013
Covering August 2013 – October 2013
See consentdecreemonitor.com for full report.

 Established an office and presence in New Orleans  Assessed progress made by the NOPD prior to the appointment
of the Consent Decree Monitor  Monitored implementation of the Office of Police Secondary
Employment  Developed a Monitoring Plan and Schedule and began to
develop Monitoring Protocols  Developed protocol for reviewing Misconduct and Use of Force
investigations  Reviewed NOPD policies and procedures
 Met with community stakeholders
WHAT WE FOUND
 The City has taken important steps toward establishing a Compliance Bureau led by a Deputy Superintendent
 NOPD made significant progress revising its policies and procedures to implement key aspects of the Consent Decree, but work remains to be done
 Contrary to the terms of the Consent Decree, NOPD prematurely implemented revised policies in advance of review by the Monitoring Team and DOJ
 NOPD made significant progress implementing its Secondary
Employment program, but work remains to be done
NEXT QUARTER’S ACTIVITIES

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP

 Continue review of NOPD policies  Identify potential local entities to conduct Biennial Community
Survey  Initiate process to develop and conduct Biennial Survey  Observe Academy and in-service training  Review Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations  Initiate compliance reviews and audits as per the Monitoring
Plan
 Monitor implementation of Secondary Employment program

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 59

Page 3 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY
“The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitor during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements
have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitor in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitor to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitor and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 457

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 59

Page 4 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

NOTES
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Easter District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 455

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 5 of 59

Page 5 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Consent Decree Authority .................................................................................................. 3 Notes ................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 Background and History...................................................................................................... 8
The Consent Decree.................................................................................................... 8 The Monitoring Team ............................................................................................... 12 The Monitoring Process ............................................................................................ 13 NOPD and City Cooperation.............................................................................................. 15 Prior Quarter Activities ..................................................................................................... 17 Met With Community Stakeholders ......................................................................... 17 Met With New Orleans Police Department .............................................................. 19 Met With City Officials .............................................................................................. 19 Met With OIG and IPM ............................................................................................. 20 Met With Department Of Justice.............................................................................. 20 Reviewed NOPD Policies and Procedures................................................................. 20 Developed Monitoring Approach ............................................................................. 28 Developed Revised Implementation Timetable ....................................................... 35 Monitored Secondary Employment Implementation .............................................. 36 Prepared Key Monitoring Documents ...................................................................... 37 Developed and Deployed Website ........................................................................... 40 Met With Metropolitan Crime Commission ............................................................. 40 Attended Police & Justice Foundation Meeting ....................................................... 41 Observed U.S. Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group ................................. 41 Audit & Review Findings ................................................................................................... 43 Compliance With Consent Decree Deadlines ................................................................... 44 Next Quarter Activities ..................................................................................................... 50 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 54 Attachment I: The Monitoring Team ............................................................................... 55 Attachment II: Critical Incident Notifications .................................................................. 58 Attachment III Review of Use of Force & Misconduct Investigations .............................. 59
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 6 of 59

Page 6 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

INTRODUCTION
New Orleans is unique. Its long history, rich culture, and colorful traditions are well known. The City’s contributions to art, music, and the culinary arts are celebrated worldwide. And the pride and loyalty of its citizenry are legendary. Yet, there historically has been another side to the City – one of crime, unemployment, historic corruption, and growing civil discontent. Unquestionably, the obstacles the City has faced over the years have been heartbreaking by any standard. From Hurricane Betsy in 1965 to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans has faced its share of adversity. But some of its obstacles have been laid down by the hand of man rather than by the hand of nature. The history of the New Orleans Police Department is one such example. As the Department of Justice found in its March 16, 2011 Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department, “the NOPD has long been a troubled agency.” Even considering the notable strides the City has made in recent years, solving the agency’s problems will take time, discipline, and patience.
As one significant step toward solving those problems, the City of New Orleans invited the Department of Justice to investigate the New Orleans Police Department. The City and the Department of Justice then entered into a Consent Decree crafted to cure the ills of the past (and present) and to secure and preserve for the citizens of New Orleans the security and protection that comes from vigorous and Constitutional law enforcement.
The City and the Department of Justice agreed to appoint an independent “Monitor” to ensure that the Consent Decree was implemented as intended and that it resulted in constitutional policing. The Monitor (actually, a Monitoring Team) has a broad and important role under the Consent Decree: “To assess and report whether the requirements of [the Consent Decree] have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” Yet, the role of the Monitoring Team is also limited in scope as the Team only has “the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by the [Consent Decree].” The Monitoring Team, for example, is not a replacement or substitute for the Police Department, the Superintendent, the Independent Police Monitor, or any other City entity.
The City of New Orleans already has taken notable steps forward in addressing some of the issues identified in the Consent Decree.1 As recognized in the Consent Decree,

1

As one such step forward, in September 2013, Superintendent Serpas

announced that the NOPD would be purchasing body cameras for patrol officer.

(footnote continued on next page)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 7 of 59

Page 7 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

many police officers have expressed their desire to continue reforms that began under the City’s Mayor and Police Superintendent. In this context, the Monitoring Team will serve a vital function in ensuring that the City and the Police Department continue moving forward. The Monitoring Team, however, is not taking on this task alone. Working in concert with (but independent of) the City of New Orleans, the NOPD, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”), community stakeholders, and the Department Of Justice (“DOJ”), the Monitoring Team is one peg in an ongoing multi-party effort.
In order to ensure that the Monitoring Team’s activities are as open and transparent as the effective undertaking of its responsibilities will allow, the Consent Decree provides that the Monitoring Team issue quarterly reports outlining, among other things, the work performed in the prior quarter, its findings, and the work it expects to perform in the next quarter. This is the Monitoring Team’s first Quarterly Report.

Although the Consent Decree requires that every patrol car be equipped with a camera, there is no requirement that every officer wear a body camera. Superintendent Serpas discussed the body camera initiative with the City Council during his 2014 budget presentation. Though the details remain to be worked out, Superintendent Serpas indicated that officers may begin wearing the cameras as soon as early next year. The NOPD is currently reviewing vendor proposals and drafting Department policies on the use of and care for the cameras.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 8 of 59

Page 8 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
On May 5, 2010, Mayor Landrieu requested that DOJ assist the City in bringing about the "complete transformation” of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”). On May 17, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notified the City2 of its intent to investigate the NOPD for an alleged pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”); the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (“Safe Streets Act”); and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”).3
As part of its investigation, DOJ, in conjunction with its police-practices consultants, conducted a detailed fact-finding review, including numerous tours of NOPD facilities; interviews with New Orleans officials, NOPD command staff, supervisors, and police officers; review of more than 36,000 pages of documents; and meetings with residents, community groups, and other stakeholders within the City. In addition, DOJ participated in detailed exit interviews between its police-practices consultants and NOPD officials following each investigatory tour.
DOJ issued a written report of its findings on March 16, 2011. The Report documented DOJ’s finding of a number of patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct and detailed DOJ’s concerns about a number of NOPD policies and practices.
On July 24, 2012, in an effort to resolve the claims brought by the United States without resort to adversarial litigation and to support vigorous and Constitutional law enforcement, the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice submitted a proposed Consent Decree to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. The Court then granted a joint motion to approve the Consent Decree on January 11, 2013.
THE CONSENT DECREE
The Consent Decree is comprehensive in nature and details specific areas for corrective action including: use of force; stops searches, seizures and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; bias-free policing; policing free of gender bias; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions;

2

See Letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Mayor Mitchell

Landrieu (March 16, 2011).

3

This history is adopted from Section I.A. of the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 9 of 59

Page 9 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconductcomplaint intake, investigation and adjudication.
The Consent Decree represents a proactive and robust mandate for reform of the policies, training, and practices of the NOPD with specific agreed-upon corrective actions and timeframes for implementation. What follows is a summary of NOPD’s core obligations under the Consent Decree.
Policies and Training
NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department’s core values and priorities, and provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all NOPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures.
Use of Force
NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to affect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment.
Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.
Stops, Searches, and Arrests
NOPD agrees to ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to ensure that investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy; are consistent with community priorities for enforcement; and are carried out with fairness and respect.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 10 of 59

Page 10 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Custodial Interrogations
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Photographic Line-Ups
NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Bias-Free Policing
NOPD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Policing Free of Gender Bias
NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the New Orleans Family Justice Center, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response.
Community Engagement
NOPD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, and to engage constructively with the community, to ensure collaborative problem solving and ethical and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 11 of 59

Page 11 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Recruitment
NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to ensure that NOPD’s recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible.
Academy and In-Service Training
NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety.
Officer Assistance and Support
NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.
Performance Evaluations and Promotions
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process, and that officers who lead effectively and ethically are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD shall further ensure that poor performance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is reflected in officer evaluations so that NOPD can identify and effectively respond.
Supervision
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct.
Secondary Employment System
The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 12 of 59

Page 12 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent.
Transparency and Oversight
To ensure comprehensive, effective, and transparent oversight of NOPD, NOPD and the City agree to develop, implement, and maintain systems that are meant to be sustained after the completion of the Consent Decree. To facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, these oversight systems shall ensure that improper incidents, practices, or trends are identified and corrected in an equitable and timely manner.
THE MONITORING TEAM
The Consent Decree Monitoring Team (“the Monitoring Team”) is a Court-appointed team with expertise in constitutional law, law enforcement, and outcome measurement. The Monitoring Team is responsible for observing and reporting the policy development, training, supervision, and implementation of practices by the NOPD as prescribed in the Court-ordered Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is independent of the City of New Orleans, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice and serves as the United States District Court’s “eyes and ears” relative to implementation of the reforms mandated in the Consent Decree. The role of the Monitoring Team is explicitly governed by the terms of the Consent Decree under the oversight of the District Court. While the Monitoring Team will be involved in engaging the citizens of New Orleans as it reviews, audits, monitors, and evaluates NOPD compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team is not intended to, nor is it permitted to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City or the NOPD.
Further, the Monitoring Team’s role is not to replace or duplicate the function of the City’s Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”). The IPM maintains its current duties and responsibilities, including its responsibility to monitor the NOPD, receive citizen
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 13 of 59

Page 13 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

complaints alleging police misconduct, and issue public reports. Importantly, the IPM, not the court-appointed Monitoring Team, will remain the New Orleans entity responsible for receiving citizen complaints involving the NOPD.
The mission of the Monitoring Team is to assess and report on whether the requirements of the Consent Decree have been implemented and whether that implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by the NOPD.
THE MONITORING PROCESS
In order effectively to assess and report on the NOPD’s implementation of the requirements of the Consent Decree, and whether that implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by the NOPD, the Consent Decree authorizes the Monitoring Team to conduct reviews, audits, and outcome assessments. (CD 447)4 Reviews and audits5 are used “to determine whether the City and NOPD have implemented and continue to comply with the material requirements of this Agreement.” (CD 447) Outcome assessments, on the other hands, are used to measure whether the implementation of the Consent Decree is resulting in constitutional policing. (CD 448)
Like all audit, oversight, and monitoring organizations, the Monitoring Team has a variety of tools at its disposal to conduct the audits, reviews, and outcome assessments contemplated by the Consent Decree. Several of these tools are described on pages 28 through 35 of this Report. Whatever monitoring methodology is used, however, must be shared with the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice in advance. (CD 453)
The vehicle available to the Monitoring Team to report its findings to the Parties, the Court, and the public is its quarterly reports. (CD 457) Among other things, these

4

References to the Consent Decree are included in this Report as “CD” followed

by the applicable paragraph number. Thus, “CD 447” refers to paragraph 447 of the

Consent Decree. References to Consent Decree text where no paragraph number is

available will cite the applicable Section number, for example, “CD XVIII.” A link to the

full text of the Consent Decree is available at www.consentdecreemonitor.com.

5

The terms “review” and “audit” are used interchangeably in the Consent Decree,

and are similarly used interchangeably in this Report. While CPAs, auditors, and

financial analysts do ascribe subtle distinctions to the terms, such distinctions are not

material for purposes of monitoring compliance with the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 14 of 59

Page 14 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

quarterly reports will describe the work conducted during the prior quarter, list the Consent Decree requirements evaluated, set forth the Monitoring Team’s findings regarding NOPD’s level of compliance with those requirements, describe the Monitoring Team’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance, and project the work to be completed during the next quarter. The reports also will describe the methodology and specific findings for each audit, review, and outcome assessment conducted.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 15 of 59

Page 15 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

NOPD AND CITY COOPERATION
The Consent Decree requires that the City and the NOPD “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation of [the Consent Decree].” (CD 467) The Consent Decree explains that this inter-disciplinary implementation unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with” the Consent Decree. (CD 467) Among other things, the unit must “coordinate the City and NOPD’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City and NOPD personnel to the Monitoring Team and DOJ, as needed; ensure that all data, documents, and records are maintained as provided in [the Consent Decree]; and assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to NOPD personnel, as directed by the Superintendent or his designee.” (CD 467)
The Consent Decree notes that both the City and the NOPD cooperated fully with the Department of Justice during its pre-Consent Decree investigation (CD I.A.), and the Monitoring Team has undertaken its monitoring activities with the same expectation of cooperation. So far, the Monitoring Team has not been let down in this regard.
NOPD initially vested the duties of the “inter-disciplinary implementation unit” in a former NOPD officer and manager reporting directly to the Superintendent. More recently, on October 23, 2013, Superintendent Serpas appointed Mr. Jay Ginsberg to serve as Deputy Superintendent over the recently created “Compliance Bureau,” which, among other things, will oversee the Department’s implementation of the Consent Decree.6 Mr. Ginsberg reports directly to the Superintendent. The Compliance Bureau is expected to include a police commander and personnel to staff six sections. A preliminary organizational chart shows that the Bureau will be divided into six sections: policy standards, training standards, compliance standards, performance standards, technology standards, and community engagement. The actual number of personnel assigned to the Bureau and each sub-section has not yet been finalized.

6

The agenda for the September 16, 2013 New Orleans City Council meeting

reflects the discussion of the following item: “Request from NOPD to reinstate

unclassified position of Deputy Superintendent to handle responsibilities overseeing

Consent Decree Compliance and Policies.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 16 of 59

Page 16 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Mr. Ginsberg is an attorney who previously served as the hearing examiner and administrative judge to the City’s Civil Service Commission. According to the NOPD, Mr. Ginsberg’s term is for one year at which time the position will be reevaluated to determine whether it should become permanent. Mr. Ginsberg’s position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission. The NOPD states that it is working toward a goal of having “all staffing parameters for this new bureau in place on, or before, December 1st, 2013.” The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with Mr. Ginsburg as the Police Department’s implementation efforts proceed.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 17 of 59

Page 17 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

PRIOR QUARTER ACTIVITIES
After a lengthy selection process, the Monitoring Team was appointed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Friday night, August 9, 2013, and had “boots on the ground” in the City on the following Monday morning. Since that time, the Monitoring Team has been busy establishing its New Orleans presence, meeting with community members, police officers, and City officials, and otherwise developing its Monitoring Plan as required by the Consent Decree. As this is the Team’s first Quarterly Report, the Team is not yet in a position to issue substantive findings regarding the NOPD’s compliance with the various elements of the Consent Decree or its progress toward achieving “full and effective compliance” with the Consent Decree. (CD 486) Such findings, as they arise, will be included in the Team’s Second Quarterly Report, and in subsequent reports where applicable. That being said, the Monitoring Team was extremely busy throughout the first quarter. The following subsections summarize the various activities that took place from August through October.
MET WITH COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
The Consent Decree contemplates that the Monitoring Team will meet with community stakeholders to explain the Monitoring Team’s reports, to inform the public about the Consent Decree implementation process, and to hear community perspectives of police interactions. (CD 461) While the core of the Team’s community outreach efforts will be through public meetings scheduled to coincide with the publication of each Quarterly Report, the Team spent a significant amount of its time this first quarter having informal meetings with citizens across the City. The Monitoring Team met this quarter with the following:
 Vera Institute  Vietnamese American Youth Leadership Association  Safe Streets/Strong Communities  Puente New Orleans  New Orleans Family Justice Center  New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice  National Guestworker Alliance  Forum for Equality  Community United for Change  Breakout!

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 18 of 59

Page 18 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

In addition, the Monitoring Team met with several thought leaders and organization leaders within the Vietnamese, LGBT, African American, Hispanic American, and migrant day worker communities.
The Monitoring Team found all of these community members and organizations eager to engage and collaborate. For example, the organizations and their representatives were willing to help identify ways for citizens to participate in the Consent Decree process and avenues to facilitate citizen input. At every opportunity, the Monitoring Team has left each organization and representative with the understanding that we intend to keep open lines of communication.
The Monitoring Team members who have engaged in interviews with community leaders from under-represented populations, such as the Limited English Proficiency communities, have found these citizens to be, by and large, frustrated with the NOPD. Common threads in their complaints about the police department include: a disparate lack of police resources; a slow or non-existent police response when they are called; disrespectful treatment in interactions with community members; lack of appropriate feedback to the community regarding incidents in their respective neighborhoods; and a fear and mistrust of NOPD officers.
Working with our team member Judith Williams Dangerfield, the Monitoring Team has received support from community members across the City. The Team will continue to work with the community to educate citizens about the Consent Decree and to encourage community involvement by empowering groups to educate and motivate their own constituencies.7
Additionally, the Monitoring Team attended a New Orleans Neighborhood Police and Community Committee (NONPACC) meeting and participated in the joint police/community “7th District Anti-Crime Walk” in the Little Woods neighborhood of the Seventh District. During the walk, we spent time talking to citizens, officers, and the district commander. The Monitoring Team will be participating in and observing future police/community walks in other neighborhoods over the coming months.

7

The FAQ section of the Monitoring Team’s web site,

www.consentdecreemonitor.com, includes additional information on how members of

the community can become more involved in the Consent Decree process.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 19 of 59

Page 19 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

MET WITH NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Monitoring Team has spent significant time with members of the NOPD, including the Superintendent, his official designee responsible for Consent Decree implementation, all Deputy Superintendents, and many others. The Monitoring Team visited and invested time talking to the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) Commander, members of the Force Investigation Team, several District Commanders, and the Commander of the NOPD Training Academy and her staff. Nearly every individual with whom we have met has been accessible, generous with his/her time, and fully cooperative. In particular, the Superintendent and his chief Consent Decree liaison have shown a sincere commitment to complying with the Consent Decree and cooperating with our monitoring process.
In order to gain a better understanding of the command and control within the New Orleans Police Department, the Monitoring Team has attended multiple CompStat meetings. “CompStat” is the process of using computer generated statistics (computer statistics) to map crime and to use that information during regular management meetings to identify crime hot stops and address crime problems. Once crime trends are determined, management decisions are developed to deploy personnel and resources to address the issues believed to be the root of criminal activity. One of the hallmarks of CompStat is holding supervisors and managers accountable for criminal activity trends in their areas of responsibility. While there are differing views of the effectiveness of CompStat and of whether it creates new problems at the same time it strives to solve existing ones, the goals of using CompStat clearly are to reduce crime, provide citizens with a feeling of safety, and enhance the quality of life in the City.
Our efforts to understand the perspectives of the New Orleans police officers have involved not only speaking with, meeting with, and riding along with police officers and supervisors in most of the police districts, but also meeting with police officer organizations, such as Police Association of New Orleans and the Fraternal Order of Police.
MET WITH CITY OFFICIALS
In addition to multiple meetings with members of the NOPD, the Monitoring Team held numerous separate meetings with other City officials over the course of the first Quarter. These meetings included the City Attorney, the Mayor’s attorney, Councilmember Susan Guidry (Chair of the Council’s Criminal Justice Committee), Councilmember Stacy Head, the Director of Special Projects for Councilmember Stacy Head, Deputy Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer Andy Kopplin, and Director of the Office of Police Secondary Employment, John Salomone.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 20 of 59

Page 20 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

MET WITH OIG AND IPM
The Monitoring Team has spent significant time with the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”) and her team and the New Orleans Inspector General (“IG”) and his team. Both have been fully cooperative with the entire Monitoring Team and extremely generous with their time.
IPM Susan Hutson, Deputy Police Monitor Simone Levine, and Executive Director of Community Relations Ursula Price have provided invaluable information to the Monitoring Team from the very start of the Consent Decree monitoring project. As the Consent Decree contemplates, the Monitoring Team looks forward to coordinating and conferring with the IPM team throughout the life of the Consent Decree. (CD 459)
New Orleans Inspector General Ed Quatrevaux and his staff – most notably Assistant IG for Inspections and Evaluations, Nadiene Van Dyke, and Assistant IG for Criminal Investigations, Howard Schwartz – have been similarly invaluable to the Monitoring Team. As with the IPM, the Monitoring Team looks forward to continued cooperation with the IG’s office throughout the life of the Consent Decree.
MET WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Just as the Monitoring Team has met with City and NOPD officials, so has the Team met with officials from the Department of Justice. These meetings have involved individuals from the Department’s Civil Rights Division as well as the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to serve as the Department’s on-site representative during the life of the Consent Decree. The DOJ attorneys have been extremely generous with their time.
REVIEWED NOPD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The NOPD began revising many of its policies and procedures prior to the execution of the Consent Decree and prior to the appointment of the Monitoring Team. Their efforts resulted in the issuance of revised policies and the creation of a policy manual, also prior to the appointment of the Monitoring Team. The NOPD, however, did not follow the process set out in the Consent Decree to have the policies, procedures, and manuals reviewed by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice in advance of implementation. (CD 21) The policy review structure set forth in the Consent Decree was intended to ensure that the NOPD undertook the time and expense of training its officers only on compliant policies, and that officers were not put in the position of having to be “untrained” and then re-trained following the policy reviews by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team. The NOPD’s implementation of its new policies in advance of their review by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 21 of 59

Page 21 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Team has created the risk that NOPD now will have to retrain personnel, which, of course, could cause added expense, delay, and confusion among the rank-and-file. Since the Monitoring Team has identified shortcomings in the new NOPD’s policies, the Consent Decree’s intended review-then-implementation structure appears to have been well-justified.
Notwithstanding the timing disconnect, the Monitoring Team spent a substantial amount of time this quarter reviewing and evaluating NOPD’s most critical policies and procedures, and meeting with Police Department personnel to share comments. NOPD currently is in the process of making revisions to many of the policies to incorporate the Monitoring Team’s recommendations. The Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice expect to review and evaluate the newly revised policies in the current quarter as they become available and report on their compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. (CD 21)
Background
Prior to the selection of the Monitoring Team, the NOPD entered into an agreement with a vendor to develop a policy manual. Working with the vendor, the NOPD vendor adopted an implementation plan setting out deliverables, project timelines, and target dates. The vendor was to draft Consent Decree-compliant policies and procedures, and provide ongoing legal reviews and updates to the policies. The implementation plan also includes a training component.8
The vendor agreement employed a “rapid adoption element,” wherein the NOPD and the vendor agreed on which policies should be developed first. The NOPD formed the Executive Development Committee (EDC) and the Administrative Policy Review Committee (PRC) to complete the development of the policies.
The Executive Development Committee is comprised of representatives from across the department, selected by each bureau chief for their overall knowledge of police operations and their expertise in a distinct subject matter. For example, the standing EDC includes members from the police academy, policy and planning, field operations, investigations, and Public Integrity Bureau (PIB). Ad hoc members are added to the EDC when the topic of the policy requires specialized expertise. Draft policies received from the vendor were assigned to the EDC for further development and to ensure they

8 See Lexipol, LLC, Implementation Plan, New Orleans Police Department, January 4, 2012.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 22 of 59

Page 22 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

comport with NOPD’s structure and terminology. Once EDC completed its work on the draft policy, EDC sent the revised policy to the PRC for additional review.
The PRC is comprised of the Deputy Superintendents of each bureau, the Superintendent’s Chief of Staff, and other senior leaders appointed by the Superintendent. The PRC’s role is to ensure the policy is consistent with overall department policy and acceptable police practices. The PRC also sent copies of the draft policies to the three organizations representing the members of the department, who then had five days to provide any comments. In addition, the proposed policies related to the Consent Decree were sent to the City Attorney’s Office for its review and comment.
Once this development and review process was complete and the PRC signed off on the policy, it was sent to the Superintendent for his review and signature. Work on twentysix policies considered “most critical” by the NOPD commenced in January 2012 and covered the following areas:
 Emergency Operations Plan;  Use of Force;  Use of Force Review Boards;  Handcuffing and Restraints;  Control Devices and Techniques;  Electronic Control Weapon (ECW);  Officer-Involved Shooting;  Vehicle Pursuits;  Officer response to Calls;  Domestic Violence;  Search and Seizure;  Custody Searches;  Temporary Custody of Juveniles;  Victim and Witness Assistance;  Report Preparation;  Patrol Function;  Racial/Biased Based Profiling;  Hostage and Barricade Incidents;  Contacts, Detentions and Photographing Detainees;  Digital Mobile Audio Video Recording;
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 23 of 59

Page 23 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

 Traffic Function and Response;  Traffic Citations;  Investigation and Prosecution;  Records Release and Security;  Sick Leave;  Personnel Complaints.

The first revised policy was issued sometime in July 2012. The last of the original 26 was completed in late June 2013.

The revised policies were assembled into a policy manual as required by the Consent Decree. The resulting policy manual consists of six major divisions, several with multiple subdivisions. Most, but not all, of the policies have an associated procedure. The following represents the major divisions and subdivisions of the policy manual:

 Code of Ethics

 Mission Statement

 Statement of Policy

 Rules of the Department

 Policies (Index found on page 24)

o Law Enforcement Role and Authority

o Organization and Administration

o General Operations

o Patrol Operations

o Traffic Operations

o Investigation Operations

o Equipment

o Support Services

o Custody

o Personnel



Procedures (Index found on page 724)

o Law Enforcement Role and Authority

o Organization and Administration

o General Operations

o Patrol Operations

o Traffic Operations

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 24 of 59

Page 24 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

o Investigation Operations o Equipment o Support Services o Custody o Personnel
Once all the targeted policies were revised, NOPD assembled a final updated manual, with a revised index, and made the manual available to all officers on the Department’s intranet on June 30, 2013. In the interim, old policies were maintained and available to officers until they were replaced by a new, revised policy.
Training on a new policy commenced as soon as the new policy was issued. The contract with the vendor included the development of Daily Training Bulletins (“DTB”) for each policy and a mechanism to deliver the training and test the officer on the Department’s intranet. As each individual new policy was completed, the online DTB’s were activated.
The Monitoring Team’s Review
Expedited Review of “Specified Provisions”
Upon becoming aware of the issuance of the policy manual and the associated training, the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice reminded NOPD of the requirements of the Consent Decree. The NOPD is required to submit new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to: Use, Reporting, and Review of Force; Crisis Intervention Team; Stops, Searches, and Arrests; Custodial Interrogations; Biased Policing; Community Engagement; Academy and In-service Training; Supervision; and Misconduct Investigations (“the specified provisions”), to the Monitoring Team and DOJ for review and comment prior to publication and implementation. (CD 21) Many of the policies identified as “most critical” by the NOPD and the vendor cover “specified provisions” of the Consent Decree.
The NOPD policy manual, consisting of 1,038 pages, was obtained by the Monitoring Team and DOJ in late August. According to the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team and DOJ have 15 days from the receipt of a policy to review and object if it does not incorporate the requirements of the Consent Decree, or is inconsistent with law. The City, the NOPD, the Department of Justice, and the Judge recognized that completing a review of all 1,038 pages of policies within 15 days was not feasible and, furthermore, did not advance the idea of ensuring that all policies were carefully reviewed prior to implementation. Nevertheless, concern was raised that a delay in completing the reviews could adversely impact progress toward compliance with the Consent Decree,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 25 of 59

Page 25 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

especially in the areas of training and accountability. In order to minimize any adverse impact, the Monitoring Team, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice agreed on a plan to expedite the review of the policies relating to the “specified provisions” of the Consent Decree, that is: Use, Reporting, and Review of Force; Crisis Intervention Team; Stops, Searches, and Arrests; Custodial Interrogations; Biased Policing; Community Engagement; Academy and In-service Training; Supervision; and Misconduct Investigations.
Forty-two policies were identified by the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice as high priority.
 Weapons Training/Requalification  Use Of Force  Use Of Force Review Board  Handcuffing And Restraints  Control Devices And Techniques  Electronic Control Weapons  Force Investigation Team/Officer Involved Shooting  In-Custody Deaths  Firearms  Ammunition  Vehicle Pursuits  Canines  Domestic Violence  Search & Seizure  Custody Searches  Workplace Discriminatory Harassment/Retaliation  Victim And Witness Assistance  Hate Crimes  Task Forces  Discriminatory Policing/Racial Bias-Based Policing/LGBT Community  Crisis Response Unit/Swat  Active Shooter  Hostage And Barricade Incidents  Mental Illness Civil Commitments
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 26 of 59

Page 26 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

 Arrests  Arrest Warrants/Wanted Persons  Immigration Violations  Field Training Program  Contacts, Detentions And Photographing Detainees  Digital Mobile Video Audio Recording  Mobile Digital Computer And Automatic Vehicle Locator Use  Traffic Stops And Traffic Checkpoints  Investigation & Prosecution  Sex Crimes Victim Rights  Eyewitness Identification  Transfers/Filling Vacancies  Misconduct Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations  Disciplinary Hearings And Penalty Schedule  Settlement Agreement  Secondary Employment  Professional Performance Enhancement Program (PEPP)  Job Performance Improvement Plan (JPIP)
The Monitoring Team’s expedited review commenced on September 1, 2013, with a commitment to share the results of the review with the NOPD as quickly as possible. The workload was divided among the members of the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team created review protocols and a report format to ensure thoroughness and consistency among reviewers and reports. Each reviewer identified his or her “assigned” paragraphs of the Consent Decree that was associated with the topic of the policy and assessed whether the policy met the Consent Decree requirements and was consistent with best practices. The reviews were time consuming and the reports detailed.
In the course of reviewing the policies, the Monitoring Team identified deficiencies in the policies. Among these deficiencies were the following:
 Though the policy manual separated directives labeled “policy” from those labeled “procedures,” the content of many of the directives found in each grouping often were a mix of policy and procedure. A policy should consist of principles and values that guide the behavior of members of the Police Department. The policy should be a statement of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 27 of 59

Page 27 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

the Police Department’s guiding principles; whereas procedures are statements of what must be done in a particular situation. The distinction between these two purposes was often confused in the directives reviewed. In many cases, the structure is not consistent with the Monitoring Team’s collective view of what makes a policy effective and usable by police officers, and the Monitoring Team’s conversations with NOPD officers suggest that there is confusion among the ranks due, in part, to the structure of the manual.9
 In some cases, policy terminology was identical to language in the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree, however, was drafted to establish standards, not to provide specific language for policies and procedures. It became apparent that, in some cases, the language of the policies was simply a “cut and paste” from the Consent Decree without tailoring of the language by NOPD to make the policies understandable, practical, and effective.
 The responsibilities of each staff level within the NOPD were not always isolated and clearly labeled. Generally, it is a good practice to list all the responsibilities for an officer together in one paragraph and subparagraphs, followed by a list of the responsibilities of the first line supervisor, and so on up the chain of command. That format was not consistently used in the policies reviewed.
 While repetition can be an effective tool when used properly, elements of NOPD’s procedures often were repeated in a policy in a confusing manner. For instance, definitions were included in one section and repeated in another. Also, prohibitions of certain activities sometimes were repeated throughout a policy, again creating confusion.

9

In response to the Monitoring Team’s comments regarding confusion among

some NOPD officers over the new policy manual format, the NOPD has taken it upon

itself to develop an “online Users’ Guide” to render the manual more “user friendly.”

While the plans are not finalized yet, according to the NOPD, the Users’ Guide is

intended to provide an overview of the purpose, structure, and features of the policy

manual in a searchable format, as well as screen shots and step-by-step instructions for

ease of officer use.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 28 of 59

Page 28 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Policy Dialogues
The Consent Decree anticipates that, in order to aid the timely, full, and effective implementation of the Consent Decree and its underlying objectives, the Monitoring Team may provide “technical assistance” to the NOPD. With that in mind, the Monitoring Team approached the NOPD with oral feedback on the problems the Monitoring Team was finding with the NOPD’s policies. Rather than submit formal written reports to the NOPD, and require them to respond in writing within the time lines set out in the Consent Decree, and thereby further delay final approval and issuance of the policy, the Monitoring Team suggested a series of dialogues around each individual policy wherein the Team would give our comments on each policy’s shortcoming and suggest improvements.
The Police Department was receptive throughout this process and indicated they would consider the Monitoring Team’s feedback and suggestions. They committed to redrafting the policies as they deemed appropriate and resubmitting them to the Monitoring Team and to DOJ for further review. Arrangements were made to receive the revised drafts as the revisions are completed, re-review the policies for compliance with the Consent Decree and best practices, revise our review reports, and forward them to NOPD and DOJ. The Monitoring Team anticipates receiving revised policies over the next several weeks.
DEVELOPED MONITORING APPROACH
The City of New Orleans, the New Orleans Police Department, and the Department of Justice entered into the Consent Decree with a shared goal of
ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
To achieve this shared goal, NOPD agreed to “fundamentally change the way it polices throughout the New Orleans Community,” by, among other things, implementing the specific requirements set out in the Consent Decree. As described in greater detail elsewhere in this Report, the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice provided for the appointment of a “Monitor” to “assess and report on whether the requirements of [the Consent Decree] have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” (CD 444)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 29 of 59

Page 29 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

In order to fulfill this mandate, the Monitoring Team must ask four core questions for every element of the Consent Decree:



Has the requirement been incorporated into NOPD written policy in a

manner that is understandable and enforceable?



Has NOPD effectively trained all relevant personnel on the policy to give

them the tools they need to fulfill their responsibilities under the Consent

Decree so that they know what is expected of them?



Are the requirements of the Consent Decree and constitutional policing

being consistently met by the NOPD in actual practice?



Are NOPD personnel who deviate from the requirements of the Consent

Decree and constitutional policing being held accountable and disciplined

consistently and effectively, and are such deviations rare?

To answer these questions, the Monitoring Team conducts audits and reviews. (CD 447) In the course of these activities, where personnel fail to comply with the NOPD’s policies and procedures, the Monitoring Team also asks whether corrective actions are being properly and effectively administered. The Monitoring Team also conducts outcome assessments to measure the impact of the NOPD’s reforms and to determine whether the reforms are having the intended effect on constitutional policing and crime control.

While the precise nature and structure of the Monitoring Team’s audits, reviews, and outcome assessments will depend upon many factors and will evolve over time – for example, in response to new information from the public or the NOPD, or as NOPD’s practices change over the life of the Consent Decree – the Monitoring Team has developed an initial schedule and approach to guide the carrying out of its Consent Decree obligations.

It is the City’s and NOPD’s burden to demonstrate “full and effective compliance” with the requirements outlined above. (CD 486) It is the Monitoring Team’s responsibility to “assess and report on whether the requirements of [the Consent Decree] have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” (CD 444)

The Consent Decree incorporates 16 substantive sections. Each section incorporates multiple subsections, which further may incorporate multiple discrete requirements. From a Consent Decree compliance perspective, each requirement inherently incorporates a policy, training, and outcome component. (CD 447)

The Monitoring Team has a wide variety of tools in its monitoring toolbox to conduct the audits, reviews, and outcome assessments necessary to assess and report on the NOPD’s compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. These tools, which have

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 30 of 59

Page 30 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

been widely accepted, adapted, and used in the police evaluation community for years, include the following:
Citizen Experience Evaluations
This monitoring methodology involves selecting and training citizens to make requests of NOPD or the City while tracking the results of their police/citizen interactions. For example, a trained citizen (sometimes called a “secret shopper” in the commercial context) may visit a police station (randomly selected) and ask for a copy of a Citizen Complaint Form. (CD 385) The results of these experiences are recorded, tallied, and analyzed by the Monitoring Team. Citizen Experience evaluations provide invaluable insight into police/citizen interactions. This process is used frequently and effectively by commercial organizations worldwide. U.S. Federal Government organizations also have used this audit/evaluation methodology with great success.
Personal Interviews
This audit and review method involves meeting with and questioning individuals about their personal experiences and/or perceptions. Interviews are an exceptionally useful tool in conducting audits and reviews because citizens and officers likely have the most relevant, first-hand accounts of citizen/police interactions. Moreover, our experience tells us that citizens and police officers often are quite willing, even relieved, to be able tell “their side of the story.” Social science literature further supports the importance of this research tool. As one scholar has noted, in–person interviews typically attain higher response rates than other means of collecting information from individuals. “Respondents seem more reluctant to turn down an interviewer who is standing on their door-step than to throw away a mail questionnaire.”10
The subjects of these interviews could be citizens, police officers, City officials, or most anyone else. The topics could range from police/citizen interactions (CD 461) to the effectiveness of Community outreach efforts (CD 432) to the effectiveness of a specific meeting, event, or Board, for example, the Police-Community Advisory Board (CD 436). Interview subjects typically are randomly selected from appropriate groups. To maximize subject participation, subjects are promised anonymity. In addition to focusing on their personal experiences, subjects also often are asked for suggestions as to how they might solve a problem, how they might enhance a process, and which

10 Maxfield, M.G. & Babbie, E.R., Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology 273 (6th ed. 2011).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 31 of 59

Page 31 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

elements of policing are working best in NOLA. This interview model is consistent with general practices performed by/for police departments across the United States.
Statistical Analysis
This approach will involve the collection and assessment of qualitative and quantitative data focusing on various aspects of the Consent Decree. Speaking generally, a qualitative data set helps us explore what is happening and, perhaps, why it is happening. A quantitative data set, on the other hand, gives us a good sense – in numerical terms – of how often something is happening, which helps us measure events, attitudes, behavior, opinions, etc. In the words of the academic world, quantitative research allows us to understand and describe “the number of people involved in certain behaviors or holding specific beliefs.”11
The Monitoring Team will perform both qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses on aggregate data to obtain an accurate picture of Consent Decree elements, including use of force trends (CD 27), the conduct of investigations of allegations of misconduct (CD 413), responsiveness of the NOPD to sexual assault reports (CD 195), and the frequency of investigatory stops and detentions (CD 122), to name a few. Any statistical analysis undertaken by the Monitoring Team will be scientific in nature and will encompass a review of existing Police Department data collection methods to assess their utility and recommend modifications, as necessary.
The Monitoring Team, however, will not rely on NOPD or City data without first independently confirming the validity of the data. A database showing crimes in a given neighborhood, for example, is only useful if it accurately captures all the crimes it claims to capture. Underreporting of crimes obviously would skew the data and render the data set unreliable. Accordingly, in this example, the Monitoring Team would test (validate) the crime data set before using it. The importance of such independent validation cannot be overstated. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that assessing the currency, accuracy, and completeness of data is a core element of almost every audit, review, and outcome assessment the Monitoring Team conducts. The Monitoring Team takes data verification very seriously.
The ultimate goal of any statistical analysis, of course, is to establish transparent benchmarks that will allow for future comparison of data, in an effort to show any progress in these areas while presenting possibilities for improvement. This
11 Nardi, P.M., Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods 15-16 (2003).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 32 of 59

Page 32 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

methodology and approach is consistent with widely used quantitative studies regarding policing practices in the United States.
Community Surveys
Surveys provide the Monitoring Team with an efficient and effective way to canvass a large number of people about a variety of topics. Surveys have been a staple in the toolbox of police departments and those who study police departments for years. Surveys provide researchers (and monitors) with the ability to “explore, describe, explain, and evaluate” an issue for the purpose of understanding it in depth in order to make decisions, make predictions, and track change over time.12
The New Orleans Crime Coalition, for example, has been conducting a citizen-funded, random survey since 2009, focusing on how New Orleanians view the NOPD. The Monitoring Team similarly will use surveys throughout its monitoring efforts.
One particularly important survey the Monitoring Team will conduct, in cooperation with the NOPD, the City, and the Department of Justice, is the Biennial Community Survey required by the Consent Decree. (CD 230)
The Consent Decree requires that “within 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” (CD 230) The Consent Decree goes on to set forth the specific steps that must be taken to ensure the reliability of the survey. Specifically, the Consent Decree requires that the Monitoring Team and any entity with which it works must:
 Develop a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters;
 Design, conduct, and analyze baseline and subsequent biennial surveys of a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees;
 Review and consider prior law enforcement surveys in New Orleans and other cities, as well as current or recent concerns in New Orleans, in designing the survey;
12 Nardi, P.M., Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods 9, 13 (2003).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 33 of 59

Page 33 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

 Engage in informal conversations with New Orleans residents, NOPD officers and command staff, and DOJ representatives, and observe community meetings;
 Ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys are designed to capture a representative sample of New Orleans residents, including members of each demographic category;
 Conduct the survey in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, as necessary, to ensure representation of the entire New Orleans community; and
 Formally discuss the survey methodology with NOPD supervisors and DOJ and consider these opinions in the development of the initial survey and in making improvements to subsequent surveys.
Survey research has been described as “a skill, an art, and an intellectual process involving collaboration, patience, and creativity.”13 The Monitoring Team will work closely with the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice to ensure that the Biennial Community Survey is fair, balanced, and effective. The Monitoring Team also will ensure that the survey is comprehensive in that it encompasses community members, police officers, and detained suspects.
Community Members
The Biennial Survey will involve interviews to question residents about their quality of life, experiences, and satisfaction with the police, as well as their fear of crime. The Monitoring Team is in the process of identifying studies that have been conducted throughout the country, and plans to use or modify questions that are relevant to the Consent Decree.14 In addition, the Monitoring Team is meeting with community leaders to identify topics of concern that could be incorporated into an effective survey. Draft questions will be discussed with government and community groups before they are finalized. Once the survey instrument is completed, it will be translated into Spanish and Vietnamese and back into English to assure that the meaning of the questions is similar for all groups.

13 Nardi, P.M., Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods 9, 13 (2003). 14 For example, the study prepared by Christopher Stone, Todd Foglesong, and Christine Cole in May 2009 called “Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD” provides a wealth of useful information.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 34 of 59

Page 34 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

NOPD Officers
The Biennial Survey will include surveys to be completed by a randomly selected sample of NOPD police officers, civilian employees, and managers. Personnel from all districts will be included in the sample. The survey questions will include their views of policing in general, policing at NOPD, morale, culture, organizational, and community support. The Monitoring Team will consult with police managers and employee representatives to help design the survey.
Detained Suspects
Suspects who have been arrested by NOPD officers have an important perspective on the delivery of police services. In order to gain access to these important survey respondents, an agreement will have to be reached with the Sheriff’s Office as the jail is under its control. The Monitoring Team’s survey design will involve approaching a sample of inmates and asking if they will participate in an interview where they will be asked about their experiences with the NOPD and the criminal justice system. This cohort of detained arrestees will be interviewed to determine their views of the police, how they were treated, and their perspectives on the justice system in which they have become involved. The Monitoring Team will coordinate with the Sheriff’s Office to help secure appropriate facilities and access to the arrestees. The potential questions will be discussed with government and community leaders.
Personal Observations
One of the most important tools in the Monitor Team’s audit/review toolbox is the ability to personally observe the NOPD’s activities and police/citizen interactions. This monitoring methodology is standard fare among monitors and researchers and affords the Monitoring Team not only the opportunity to review activities and interactions, but also the opportunity for “unstructured interviews” of police officers.15
Whether one calls this method (as the social scientists do) “participant observation” or “systematic observation,” we plan to spend a significant amount of our time watching, listening, and learning. The Consent Decree grants the Monitoring Team the authority to “conduct on-site visits and assessments without prior notice to the City and NOPD.” The Consent Decree makes it clear that the Monitoring Team “shall have access to all necessary individuals, facilities, and documents, which shall include access to
15 Maxfield, M.G. & Babbie, E.R., Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology 299 (6th ed. 2011).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 35 of 59

Page 35 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

[Consent Decree] related trainings, meetings, and reviews, such as critical incident reviews, use of force review boards, and disciplinary hearings.” (CD 470) Further, the Consent Decree guarantees the Monitoring Team “timely, full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, critical incident crime scenes, and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by [the Consent Decree].” (CD 471) The Team’s Monitoring Plan takes full advantage of this authority.
Critical Reviews
This method involves using the experience, expertise, and judgment of the Monitoring Team to render a judgment that is supported by the collective experience and expertise of the Team. Collectively, the members of the Monitoring Team have held every rank and performed every task in a police department from patrol officer to chief. They have written policies, developed and evaluated training programs, and otherwise been involved in implementing policing best practices for decades. The Monitoring Team will rely on this audit tool, for example, to review each policy and procedure prepared by the NOPD, to assess the content of and delivery of in-service training, to review internal investigations into allegations of abuse or force and citizens’ complaints, and to evaluate the quality of the various controls deployed by the NOPD in response to the Consent Decree.
* * *
The audits, reviews, and outcome assessments conducted by the Monitoring Team will take advantage of each of these tools (and more) to ensure that the NOPD is complying with all material terms of the Consent Decree and that that compliance is resulting in constitutional policing.
DEVELOPED REVISED IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE
The Consent Decree sets out a wide range of activities and obligations that the NOPD and the City must undertake within a certain period of time. As approved by the Court, the timelines for these obligations were tied to the “Effective Date” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree originally defined the Effective Date as the date the Consent Decree was entered by the Court, which was January 11, 2013. The Monitoring Team, however, was not appointed until August 9, 2013. As a result of this delay, the Court revised the Consent Decree Effective Date to August 9, 2013. The City, the NOPD, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team are operating and will continue to

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 36 of 59

Page 36 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

operate using the August 9, 2013 date as the Effective Date for purposes of Consent Decree obligations.16
MONITORED SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT IMPLEMENTATION
The Consent Decree mandates that the City “completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ offduty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community.” (CD XVI) To achieve this outcome, the Consent Decree provides that “the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards.” (CD XVI)
The Consent Decree establishes specific requirements for the Office. Broadly, they are designed to ensure that the secondary employment system is independent, transparent, professionally managed, and consistent with NOPD employees’ law enforcement duties and obligations. Implementing the Consent Decree’s secondary employment provisions requires legal, administrative, and operational actions.
Pursuant to this directive, and prior to the appointment of the Monitoring Team, the City established the Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”). In May 2012, the City hired Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) John Salomone to set up and direct the OPSE. Lieutenant Colonel John Salomone has more than 21 years of service in the United States Army, much of that experience concerns operations and logistics. He was commissioned into the United States Army Quartermaster Corps in May 1990 upon graduating from Georgetown University. He served tours in Cuba, Somalia, Korea, Germany, Iraq, and England. He was selected for the Army’s Advanced Civil Schooling Program in 1998 through which he earned his master’s degree from North Carolina State University in 2000. Before retiring in October 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Salomone was Chief of Plans and Operations and Deputy G3 of the 377th Theater Sustainment Command in Belle Chase, where he led sustainment and exercise planning in support of United States Southern Command and all operations supporting the command’s six general-officer subordinate commands and 38,600 Soldiers. He has no prior affiliation with the NOPD.
16 The Court order modifying the effective date of the Consent Decree made clear that the implementation date for the Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”) was not being extended beyond the original date of January 11, 2014. See District Court Minute Entry (9/6/13).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 37 of 59

Page 37 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

On or about August 13, 2013, the City Council approved pay rates and conditions for secondary employment details. The NOPD has drafted policies governing secondary employment by its officers, which have been submitted to DOJ and the Monitoring Team for review. OPSE has drafted complementary policies, which have been submitted to the DOJ and the Monitoring Team. Together these policies have been drafted to ensure that secondary employment assignments are made and managed consistent with the officers’ duties and responsibilities and the terms of the Consent Decree. The City has executed a contract with a vendor that will provide a computerized system to manage scheduling of details and to ensure that the assignments comply with the Consent Decree’s provisions concerning eligibility for secondary employment, supervision, staffing, rotations, and other provisions of the Consent Decree designed to ensure the integrity of the secondary employment system. Upon implementation, this system will expand OPSE’s capacity to assign and manage secondary employment.
Director Salomone has hired 9 full-time professionals for OPSE. There are currently 60 officers who have registered and received the necessary approvals from the NOPD to be eligible for secondary employment assignments. To date, seven details have been completed; two have been confirmed, but not yet performed. Director Salomone and his staff have held approximately 25 face-to-face meetings per month with NOPD employees, potential customers (employers), and other interested stakeholders to educate them about the secondary employment system. These outreach efforts are continuing. The Monitoring Team has been working closely with Director Salomone, the City, and the NOPD to monitor the implementation of the OPSE, and will continue to do so.
PREPARED KEY MONITORING DOCUMENTS
In addition to the periodic audits, reviews, and outcome assessments that the Monitoring Team must conduct, the Consent Decree also directs certain evaluations to occur whenever a certain type of event occurs. The Monitoring Team spent significant time this past quarter working with the NOPD to develop effective procedures to meet these obligations while minimizing the disruption to the Police Department and those City entities having an existing responsibility to monitor the Police Department. Two areas in which the Monitoring Team and the City developed such procedures are with respect to (i) Misconduct Investigation and Use of Force Reviews and (ii) Critical Incident Reviews.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 38 of 59

Page 38 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations Review Procedure
The Consent Decree requires that the City and NOPD
provide each investigation of a serious use of force or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint investigation (i.e., criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft), to the Monitor before closing the investigation or communicating the recommended disposition to the subject of the investigation or review. (CD 454)
The Consent Decree goes on to state that the Monitoring Team “shall review each serious use of force investigation and each serious misconduct complaint investigation and recommend for further investigation any use of force or misconduct complaint investigations that the Monitor determines to be incomplete or for which the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” (CD 454) Once the Monitoring Team provides its evaluation, including “written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete or inadequately supported by the evidence,” the NOPD must determine “whether the additional investigation or modification recommended by the Monitor should be carried out.” (CD 454) The Consent Decree makes clear that this determination rests with the Superintendent, not with the Monitoring Team. However, where the “Superintendent determines not to order the recommended additional investigation or modification, the Superintendent will set out the reasons for this determination in writing.” (CD 454)
The insertion of the Monitoring Team into the Use of Force and Misconduct Complaint Investigation process necessarily will add additional time to the process. The City, however, has an obligation pursuant to State Law to ensure that its Public Integrity Bureau completes its administrative investigations “within the time limitations mandated by state law.” (CD 403) The “State Law” referred to here is known as the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights.17 This Bill of Rights provides that “each investigation of a police employee or law enforcement officer which is conducted under the provisions of this Chapter shall be completed within sixty days.” The Bill of Rights provides for an
17 The formal name for this Chapter of the Louisiana Revised Statutes is “Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 39 of 59

Page 39 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

extension of time to 120 days upon a showing of “good cause for the granting of an extension of time within which to complete the investigation.” La. Rev. Stat. 25:2531(7).
In order to perform its review function as mandated by the Consent Decree while not materially impacting the City’s ability to meet its State Law obligations, the Monitoring Team worked with the NOPD PIB to develop a mutually acceptable review procedure. The procedure is attached to this Report as Attachment III.18
Critical Incident Review Procedure
Many of the NOPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree relate to “Critical Incidents.”19 These include obligations in the areas of Use of Force, Misconduct
18 The Monitoring Team is mindful of the difficulties the NOPD already is facing in completing its PIB investigations within the 60/120 day state law deadline. The New Orleans press has reported several instances of police officers having their discipline overturned on appeal due to the City failure to abide by the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights. One such example of such a Court reversal was seen in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Tyrone Robinson vs. Department of Police, No. 2012-CA-1039. In this appeal from a Civil Service Commission ruling, the Court concluded that the PIB had taken longer than the 60/120 days for conducting an investigation provided for the Bill of Rights, and further found that the pendency of a criminal investigation did not extend this statutory timeline. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Civil Service Commission and dismissed the discipline imposed. More recently, however, the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Patrick O’Hern vs. New Orleans Police Department, 2013C-1416, ruled that a pending criminal investigation does toll the running of the 60/120 day clock. The O’Hern decision will relieve at least some of the time pressures on the NOPD PIB, at least in the context of related criminal and administrative investigations. 19 “Critical incident” means: (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer, whether on or off duty; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization, whether the injury is to the officer or the subject; (4) uses of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer; (5) uses of force by police department personnel of a rank higher than sergeant; (6) all instances of in custody deaths; (7) all neck holds; (8) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (9) all canine bites; (10) more than two applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW) on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; (11) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject; (12) any incident involving an active shooter; and (13) any hostage or barricaded person incident.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 40 of 59

Page 40 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Investigation, Bias-Free policing, and the creation of the “Health and Wellness Program,” which encompasses critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling, to name just a few. Consequently, the Monitoring Team has a need to be notified of and be afforded the opportunity to observe critical incidents. The Consent Decree recognizes the importance of such access when it requires that “the City and NOPD agree to ensure that the Monitor shall have timely, full and direct access to all City and NOPD staff, employees, critical incident crime scenes, and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by [the Consent Decree].” (CD 471)
In order to facilitate timely notification of all critical incidents and prompt access to such incidents, the Monitoring Team worked with the NOPD to develop a mutually acceptable Critical Incident Notification procedure. The procedure was implemented this quarter and will continue in effect throughout the life of the Consent Decree so that the Monitoring Team is always aware of, and has the opportunity to observe, critical incidents. The procedure is attached to this Report as Attachment II.
DEVELOPED AND DEPLOYED WEBSITE
In an effort to enhance the transparency of the Monitoring Team’s activities, provide information to the citizens of New Orleans regarding the Consent Decree and the Monitoring Team, and to facilitate the availability of the Team’s Quarterly Reports, the Monitoring Team designed and developed a web site. In addition to serving as a central repository of the Team’s Quarterly Reports and other important information regarding the Consent Decree, the site (www.consentdecreemonitor.com) will be used to announce the Team’s public meetings. The site also provides links to the NOPD PIB, the New Orleans Office of Inspector General, the Independent Police Monitor, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
MET WITH METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSION
The Metropolitan Crime Commission (“MCC”) is “a non-profit, citizen’s organization dedicated to exposing public corruption, improving the administration of justice, and reducing the incidence of crime in order to improve the quality of life for citizens in the New Orleans and Baton Rouge metropolitan areas and throughout Louisiana.” The Monitoring Team met with the Commission’s Executive Director and Chairman. The Team reviewed the history of the MCC and its efforts to monitor the NOPD in an effort to promote good police practices. The Commission shared copies of prior studies conducted by MCC related to arrest rates. The team discussed the Commission’s current effort to study arrest-to-conviction ratios and assess whether arrests are or are not leading to convictions and determine why they are or are not. The Commission has
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 41 of 59

Page 41 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

an extensive database, which it expressed a willingness to share with the Monitoring Team.
ATTENDED POLICE & JUSTICE FOUNDATION MEETING
Members of the Monitoring Team met with leaders from the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation. The primary purpose of the meeting was to learn more about the Orleans Parish Information Sharing System (“OPISIS”), an endeavor to facilitate the sharing of criminal justice system information across multiple agencies within Orleans Parish. OPISIS funding is provided by the Police and Justice Foundation. The OPISIS program is governed by an Executive Board comprised of executives from the participating agencies that includes NOPD Superintendent, Orleans Parish Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Chief Judge of the Criminal District Court, the Criminal Court District Court Clerk, the Chief Public Defender, the Chief Information Officer of the City of New Orleans, Chief Judge of the Municipal Court and the Executive Officer of the Justice Foundation.
OBSERVED U.S. ATTORNEY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATION GROUP
The Consent Decree requires the NOPD to establish formal coordination between command-level officials and the Orleans Parish District Attorney, municipal and state court judges, the Orleans Public Defender, the New Orleans Independent Police Monitor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the United States Attorneys Office. To this end, a Criminal Justice Coordination Group has been established by and convened by the USAO. (CD 430) The group meets monthly to share regular feedback regarding the quality of NOPD arrests and indicia of misconduct; to refer specific allegations of misconduct for investigation; and to receive an update on the status of previous referrals.” (CD 430) While the Consent Decree requires that the Coordination Group be developed and implemented by February 2014, the group already has been meeting for several months. The NOPD is a regular attendee and participant at the meetings.
We observed the August meeting, which was attended by the First Assistant of the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, the New Orleans Public Defender, the Chief Judge of the Orleans Parish Criminal Court, the Chief Judge of the New Orleans Municipal Court, the New Orleans City Attorney, the Orleans Parish Magistrate Commissioner, the Executive Assistant of the USAO, the FBI Special Agent in Charge, and the Independent Police Monitor and Deputy Monitor. Representing the NOPD was PIB Deputy Superintendent Arlinda Westbrook, PIB Commander Tami Brissett, and Consent Decree Coordinator Danny Cazenave. The meeting was chaired by Assistant United States Attorney Steve Parker.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 42 of 59

Page 42 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

During that meeting, there was a discussion about ways NOPD can be routinely informed about court findings relating to improper searches and arrests. The NOPD attendees were fully engaged in the discussions. There was a constructive tone to the discussions, reflecting the importance of the issues and an interest in identifying solutions.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 43 of 59

Page 43 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

AUDIT & REVIEW FINDINGS
The Consent Decree requires that the Monitoring Team submit its proposed monitoring methodology to the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice in advance of undertaking any audit, review, or outcome assessment. (CD 453) Each entity then has the opportunity to submit comments or concerns regarding the proposed methodology to the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team then either must “modify the methodology as necessary to address any concerns or shall inform the Parties in writing of the reasons it is not modifying its methodology as proposed.” In other words, while the Monitoring Team will consider the input of the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice with respect to its methodology, the Monitoring Team is responsible for the manner in which it conducts its audits and reviews.
The Monitoring Team has begun sharing its proposed audit/review methodologies with the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice for review and comments. Consequently, the Monitoring Team expects to be in a position to begin reporting substantive findings in the next quarter. While the format of such future reports likely will evolve over time, each will clearly set forth for each Consent Decree requirement reviewed during that quarter the Monitoring Team’s conclusions regarding:
 Whether the requirement effectively has been incorporated into NOPD policy.
 Whether the requirement has been the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees, and
 Whether the requirement has been fully implemented in actual practice.
Each Quarterly Report also will clearly identify what audits and reviews have been conducted by the Monitoring Team, the source data assessed, the methodology employed, and the specific findings (redacted as necessary to protect privacy). (CD 457)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 44 of 59

Page 44 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE DEADLINES
The Consent Decree phases in many of the NOPD’s obligations. Some actions are required to be performed immediately, others are intended to be rolled out over the course of longer period of times, for example, within 90, 180, or 365 days. In addition to assessing and reporting on the City’s and NOPD’s compliance with the substantive elements of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team also tracks the timing of NOPD’s compliance. NOPD was obligated to take the following actions within the first 90 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree.

Paragraph
Consent Decree Action
Deadline
Status
Discussion

20
Within 90 days of the effective date, NOPD shall set out a schedule for completing all policies, procedures, and manuals within 365 days of the Effective Date.
November 7, 2013
Partially Completed
Prior to the selection of the Monitoring Team, NOPD entered into an agreement with a vendor to develop a policy manual. Working with the vendor, NOPD created an implementation plan setting out deliverables, project timelines, and target dates. The vendor agreed to draft Consent Decree-compliant policies and procedures, and to provide ongoing legal reviews and updates to the policies. The resulting implementation plan set out a policy development approach and includes a training component. The plan employed a “rapid adoption element,” wherein the NOPD and the vendor agreed on which policies should be developed first. The NOPD formed the Executive Development Committee (“EDC”) and the Administrative Policy Review Committee (“PRC”) to ensure the policies met the requirements of the Consent Decree and the needs of the department. A copy of the implementation plan was included with documents given to the Monitoring Team the first week after the team was in place.
The plan, however, failed to factor in the Consent Decree requirement that “specified policies” must be sent to the Monitoring Team and DOJ for their review and comment before they are issued. Now that the Monitoring Team is in place, the Department has revised the process to ensure DOJ and the Monitoring Team receive copies of draft policies for review prior to issuing the policy.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 45 of 59

Page 45 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Paragraph Consent Decree Action
Deadline Status Discussion

247
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a full-time Department-wide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, and designate a single training coordinator in each District and central organization unit to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division.
November 7, 2013
Partially Completed
The Police Department issued Policy 208 Training and Procedure PR208 Training, which set forth NOPD’s policy on recruit, in-service, specialize, roll call, and outside training. The directives establish within the Training Division the training liaison position and a training coordinator in each district/division/unit of the department. The Training Liaison is tasked with establishing and maintaining communications with each training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Education and Training Division.
The Monitoring Team was provided a memorandum naming a captain assigned to training to serve as the Training Liaison. The Monitoring Team also has been provided with a roster of training coordinators within each police district and eight specialized units.
The policy also creates the academy curriculum director with responsibility for ensuring that lesson plans are prepared and maintained, classes are conducted, and proper instruction provided. The curriculum director also is responsible for ensuring members of the Department have been trained as required. It is not clear from the policy the organizational relationship between the curriculum director and the training liaison position. The policy and procedure were issued June 23, 2013.
Yet to be assessed is the degree of interaction between the training liaison and training coordinators, and whether proper documentation is maintained of the date, time, and content of roll call training held by supervisory personnel at the district and unit level. Also to be assessed is how the NOPD is ensuring that all officers complete required training.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 46 of 59

Page 46 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Paragraph Consent Decree Action
Deadline Status Discussion

317
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the City and NOPD agree to create a plan for the implementation of the Early Warning System (“EWS”), which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS. The City and NOPD agree to maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users.
November 7, 2013
Partially Completed
The City and the NOPD agreed to develop and use an EWS to evaluate the performance of all employees across all ranks and to develop a plan to create the EWS within 90 days of the effective date.
On September 5, 2013 NOPD provided the Monitoring Team a copy of the Early Warning System Implementation Plan, dated April 10, 2013. The document states that it was prepared to meet the requirements of paragraph 317 of the Consent Decree, which requires that the City and NOPD create a plan to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS. It sets out a data collection and input strategy; lists twenty-one distinct data elements required by the consent decree and six additional data elements; identifies data sources; details early warning system requirements including that it be web-capable, allows configuration of special needs data analysis and is compatible with multiple data formats; identifies EWS stakeholders, their training needs and a training approach; and delineates policy needs and structure.
It identifies the EWS Implementation Committee Analytics Working Group which was tasked with assessing the comprehensiveness of available data needed for the EWS, identifying needed enhancements to existing systems, determining need for security and privacy, and developing a records retention plan.
The plan shows that the City and NOPD analyzed the EWS requirements and for each requirement began the process of mapping how the data are currently collected and how they might be fed into the EWS. The plan includes a chart detailing each of the requirements, the NOPD unit or bureau currently responsible for collecting the data, the application that currently houses the data, the type of database used by this application, whether the application needs modifications, other possible

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 47 of 59

Page 47 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

sources for the specified data, and the employee currently responsible for this data.
The plan recognizes the need to classify all employees into peer groups and design specific thresholds for each group. It commits to continue to develop the peer group thresholds during the coming months as it defines performance indicators, creates peer groups, and calculates thresholds. In the meantime it sets out a table of performance indicators and related threshold that will apply to all employees until peer group analysis is enabled.
The plan includes an appendix that identifies significant ‘milestones’ to full implementation of the Early Warning System and provides projected completion dates of each identified milestone. Noteworthy completion dates are:
 Release of RFP – December 31, 2013
 Begin drafting EWS policies – 1st Quarter 2014
 Vendor selected – 2nd Quarter 2014
 Pilot implementation – 2nd Quarter 2015
 Full implementation – 1st Quarter 2016
A working draft of the EWS system RFP has been prepared and a copy provided to the Monitoring Team.
The EWS plan correctly points out that “In order to ensure the seamless implementation of the EWS, it is important that oversight, operational, and maintenance responsibilities be clearly delineated among key personnel.” Yet it also points out that “These responsibilities have not yet been institutionalized as an official protocol.” The plan assigns the responsibility for the operation of the EWS to the Deputy Superintendent of the Compliance Bureau. Yet to be accomplished is the hiring of a full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist. The Department has 270 days from the Effective Date to fill the position. Also to be accomplished is putting in place staff to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users.

Paragraph
Consent Decree Action

329
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 48 of 59

Page 48 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Deadline Status Discussion

their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment.
November 7, 2013
Partially Completed
NOPD policies require testing of the equipment. However, the policies do not include a requirement that the ECW video/audio recorder attachment be tested at the beginning of the officer’s tour of duty or set out the required frequency of the testing of the AVL equipment.
Policy 309 and procedure PR309, Electronic Control Weapons, were issued on 2 June 2013. Policy 444 and procedure PR444, Digital Mobile Video Audio Recording, were issued on 22 July 2013. Policy 446 and procedure PR446 were issued on 8 August 2013.
Policy 309 and procedure PR309 require each officer equipped with an ECW to test the functionality of the ECW at the beginning of the tour. A spark testing protocol is included in the directives. However, the directives do not include a requirement for testing the functionality of the video camera attachment included on the ECW. Camera functionality is only assessed in the aftermath of a use. The manufacturer’s user manual provides instruction on testing the recorder. NOPD should incorporate these instructions into PR309 alongside the instructions for spark testing the ECW.
Procedure PR446 requires each officer assigned to a vehicle equipped with a DMVAR to test the functionality of the equipment, including the camera and the body microphone, at the beginning of his shift. The officer must also create a brief recording at that time. The directive clearly states that the officer must ensure all components of the system are functioning, document any malfunctions in a written report and inform his supervisor of the malfunctions.
Officers also are required to check the amount of recording space of the DMVAR to make sure there is enough space to complete their tour of duty.
Procedure PR448 requires the MDC Unit to develop a regular maintenance schedule for testing AVL equipment. The MDC Unit representatives are to inspect and perform maintenance checks on available MDC equipment and associated AVL devices and list any problems found. Necessary corrective are to be taken to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment. However, the policy does not indicate the required frequency of the testing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 49 of 59

Page 49 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

Yet to be assessed is whether or not the testing protocols required by the three policies produce the desired results; that is, that the equipment is functioning as intended at the beginning of the officer’s shift.

Paragraph
Consent Decree Action
Deadline
Status
Discussion

425
The City agrees to request the Civil Service Commission to, within 90 days of the Effective Date, post online its full decisions related to NOPD discipline in a timely manner.
November 7, 2013
Completed
The Monitoring Team was presented with a letter from the New Orleans City Attorney to the Personnel Director requesting that the Commission post online its full decisions related to any NOPD discipline in a timely manner. On October 14, the Personnel Director responded to the email directing the City Attorney to the NOLA Civil Service Commission web page at http://www.nola.gov/civil-service/commission/decisions/.
Since April 11, 2013, the Commission has posted 19 findings of police officer disciplinary hearings. The Monitoring Team viewed those nineteen postings and found that they contained a copy of the full decision of the Commission’s findings.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 50 of 59

Page 50 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

NEXT QUARTER ACTIVITIES
The next quarter’s activities20 will involve the implementation of audit, review, and outcome assessments per the monitoring schedule shared with the City, the NOPD, and the Department of Justice. Among other things, the Monitoring Team plans to focus on the following activities:
Finalize Policy Evaluations
The Consent Decree establishes prompt and full implementation of policies as a critical priority. The Monitoring Team will continue to work closely with NOPD and the DOJ to finalize the Team’s review and evaluation of proposed new and revised NOPD policies, procedures, and manuals. Our current collaborative approach includes having informal discussions between NOPD staff and Monitoring Team members to discuss identified concerns with proposed policies. These discussions have allowed NOPD to make timely adjustments to proposed policies thereby potentially significantly reducing the time span between policy proposal, acceptance, and final implementation. New policies, however, will be reviewed in accordance with the process and timeline set forth in the Consent Decree.
In evaluating each policy, the Monitoring Team will review and comment prior to NOPD publication and implementation and note any objection in writing if the proposed new or revised policy, procedure, or manual is inconsistent with or does not incorporate the Consent Decree requirements and the law. Factors or circumstances may occur requiring the Monitoring Team to determine the necessity for extending the prescribed time for policy reviews. The Consent Decree authorizes granting additional policy review time only where it is clear that additional time is necessary to ensure full and proper review. The Court may be asked to resolve matters where the DOJ or the Monitoring Team, despite resolution attempts, believes that NOPD policy, procedure, or manual remains inconsistent with the Consent Decree or the law.
Develop Biennial Community Survey
The Monitoring Team, with DOJ approval, will initiate the process to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative biennial survey of members of the New Orleans
20 In order to bring the Consent Decree implementation and reporting activities into parallel with the City’s Fiscal Year, the Monitoring Team’s second Quarterly Report will be issued in May 2014, and will cover activity through the remainder of 2013 and the first calendar quarter of 2014.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 51 of 59

Page 51 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety. The Monitoring Team will design, conduct, and analyze baseline and subsequent biennial surveys of a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. The survey will establish a baseline of measures on public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of policecitizen encounters. The survey design will review and consider elements of prior law enforcement surveys in New Orleans and other cities, as well as current or recent concerns in New Orleans.
The Monitoring Team will engage in informal conversations with New Orleans residents, NOPD officers and command staff, and DOJ representatives, and observe community meetings prior to working with the Monitoring Team to design the survey. It will help ensure that the resident and arrestee surveys capture a representative sample of New Orleans residents, including members of each demographic category and conduct the survey in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, as necessary, to ensure representation of the entire New Orleans community.
Formal discussion about the survey methodology will include NOPD supervisors and the DOJ. Their opinions also will be considered in developing the initial survey and in making improvements to subsequent biennial surveys.
Attend Academy and In-Service Training
NOPD policies and procedures must provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. Training is required for NOPD officers and employees to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures. NOPD training must reflect and instill agency expectations that police officers have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety.
Both recruit and in-service Consent Decree training requirements must be fully implemented and practically applied to achieve desired outcomes. To that end, Monitoring Team audit and review protocols will include reviewing lesson plans, verifying instructor qualifications, and attending and auditing academy and in-service training classes. We will ensure that “adult learning techniques”21 are employed in the

21 As most people intuitively recognize, adults learn differently from children. Consequently, effective instructors teach adults differently from children. The (footnote continued on next page)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 52 of 59

Page 52 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

training. We will audit attendance records to ensure that everyone who should be trained is trained.
Recruit classes shall not exceed 30 candidates. The Monitoring Team will audit and review recruit academy classes for instructional hours in required areas including appropriate use of force, stops, searches, and arrests, and bias-free policing. The Monitoring Team will also attend problem-based learning and scenario-based exercises including how to communicate with Limited English Proficiency (“LEP”)22 individuals in commonly encountered scenarios, constitutional and statutory law, ethical decisionmaking and community policing. The reviews will include reports and statements produced by recruits at the end of scenario-based exercises.
In-service training must comprehensively address each of the subject areas in the Consent Decree that requires in-service training. The Monitoring Team will attend inservice training classes to assess the training curricula, lesson plans, and procedures for consistency, quality, accuracy, currency, completeness, and compliance with applicable law and NOPD policy. Attending classes will allow the Monitoring Team to evaluate techniques incorporated into training, including the variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, problem-solving practices and traditional lecture formats.
Review Use of Force and Misconduct Investigations
The Monitoring Team will be provided and will review each investigation of a serious use of force or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and all reports of investigation of a serious misconduct complaint before NOPD closes and reports its recommended disposition to the involved employee. In order to conduct
techniques an effective instructor uses to teach adults are referred to as “adult learning techniques” or “adult learning theory,” and focus on, among other things, using the adult student’s experience, emphasizing the practical application of class material, having students participate in group work, and designing a curriculum organized by problem areas instead of subjects.” See, e.g., Malcolm S. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Association Press 1980); see also Eric P. Werth, Adult Learning: Similarities in Training Methods and Recruits Learning Characteristics (Police Chief Magazine, November 2013). 22 The Consent Decree states that LEP, or Limited English Proficient, “refers to a person who does not speak English as his/her primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. LEP individuals may be competent in certain types of communication (e.g., speaking or understanding), but still be LEP for other purposes (e.g., reading or writing). (CD 14)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 53 of 59

Page 53 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

such reviews effectively, the Monitoring Team has taken steps to ensure that it is timely notified by the NOPD of all uses of force, misconduct investigations, and citizen complaints. The Monitoring Team also has taken steps to ensure that NOPD shares all information, documents, and data (including source documents) regarding each use of force, misconduct investigation, and/or citizen complaint, as requested by the Monitoring Team. The NOPD has fully cooperated in developing effective procedures to ensure an effective and timely review by the Monitoring Team.
The Monitor Team will coordinate with the IPM in conducting these reviews. Upon reviewing each serious use of force investigation and each serious misconduct complaint investigation, the Monitoring Team will recommend for further investigation any use of force or misconduct complaint investigations determined to be deficient or for which the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Monitoring Team will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete or inadequately supported by the evidence. The Monitoring Team will offer recommendations for further investigation or modification that can be concluded within the timeframes mandated by state law. These actions will be taken in a manner that does not adversely impact the time constraints placed on the investigative process by the Officer Bill of Rights.
Conduct Reviews, Audits, and Outcome Assessments
The Monitoring Team will begin conducting comprehensive and reliable compliance reviews or audits as necessary to determine whether the City and NOPD have implemented and continue to comply with the material requirements of the Consent Decree. In addition to the reviews and audits, the Monitoring Team will begin conducting “outcome assessments” to measure whether implementation of the Consent Decree is resulting in constitutional policing. These outcome assessments are specifically identified in the Consent Decree and include the collection and analysis of outcome data in the areas of Use of Force, Stop, Search, and Arrest, Bias-Free Policing, Community Engagement, Recruitment and Training, Officer Assistance and Support, Performance Evaluation and Promotion, Supervision, and Secondary Employment. (CD 448) The Monitoring Team has developed a schedule to ensure effective and continuing coverage of each area over the life of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team’s schedule involves conducting the required outcome assessments at least annually, except where otherwise agreed by the Parties with the approval of the District Court. The schedule also involves conducting a compliance review or audit of each requirement of the Consent Decree within the first two years of the Consent Decree, and a compliance review or audit of each requirement at least annually thereafter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 54 of 59

Page 54 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

CONCLUSION
Based on our preliminary observations over the first three months of monitoring, we believe that the leadership of the New Orleans Police Department is committed to fulfilling the objectives of the Consent Decree. While, for a variety of reasons, the City’s efforts to engage the Consent Decree Monitor took longer than expected, it appears that the NOPD’s progress in meeting its commitments under the Consent Decree is gaining momentum. The Superintendent’s appointment on October 23, 2013 of Mr. Jay Ginsberg to serve as Deputy Superintendent over the new NOPD “Compliance Bureau” is one example of this momentum. The actual establishment of the Compliance Bureau, of course, will reflect even further momentum.
NOPD, however, has a lot of work ahead of it. The Consent Decree is comprehensive in its scope. It will take a combination of commitment, time, resources, and consistent vigilance to bring the Police Department into full compliance with the Consent Decree. Additionally, the NOPD will need the full support of the City in order to meet its obligations. For our part, we will continue to be vigilant, and our future reports will objectively and independently measure the success of NOPD’s ongoing efforts, identify and explain the basis for each of the Monitoring Team’s findings, and, importantly, determine whether the NOPD’s efforts are resulting in constitutional policing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 55 of 59

Page 55 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

ATTACHMENT I: THE MONITORING TEAM
The Sheppard Mullin Monitoring Team brings the academic, legal, and law enforcement communities together to meet the shared objective of ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the Unites States. Core members of the Monitoring Team include the following:
Jonathan Aronie (Primary Monitor) is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts and Internal Investigations Practice Group. Since 1994, Jonathan has conducted complex internal investigations and compliance reviews for a wide range of Fortune 500 companies. Jonathan previously served as the Deputy Independent Monitor over the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Prior to private practice, Jonathan served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patricia Wynn, DC Superior Court, where he spent most of his time in the Juvenile Crimes division. Jonathan is a graduate of Duke University School of Law. He is cleared at the highest levels and frequently handles cases involving national security issues.
David Douglass (Deputy Monitor) is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts and Internal Investigations Practice Group. In private practice, David represents corporations and individuals in civil and criminal investigations, litigation, and prosecutions. Prior to entering private practice, David was an Assistant United States Attorney and then a DOJ civil rights prosecutor, where, among other responsibilities, he investigated and prosecuted excessive force cases. In addition to extensive trial experience, David also brings significant experience reviewing the actions of law enforcement agencies. In 1994, he served as Executive Director of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Review of White House Security. Prior to that, he was Assistant Director of the Treasury Department’s investigation of the ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. David received his law degree, cum laude, from Harvard Law School and his undergraduate degree from Yale College.
Chief Dennis Nowicki (Deputy Monitor) is a senior law-enforcement professional whose career spans over forty-nine years of public service. Retiring as Chief of Police for Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina in 1999, Chief Nowicki also has served as Executive Director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and Chief of Police for Joliet, Illinois. Chief Nowicki began his career in policing with the Chicago Police Department, rising to the rank of deputy superintendent. He retired after twenty six years with that department. Since retiring from Charlotte-Mecklenburg, he served as the executive director of a COPS funded regional community policing training institute and, more recently, has concentrated his work on assisting police departments and DOJ in matters relating to managing police use of force. Chief Nowicki has served on the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 56 of 59

Page 56 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

teams monitoring the District of Columbia Police Department and the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department.
Chief Theron “T” Bowman currently serves as a Deputy City Manager in Arlington, Texas. He served as the Chief of Police in Arlington from 1999-2012. Dr. Bowman received his Ph.D. in Urban and Public Administration from the University of Texas at Arlington and has served on the faculty of several universities teaching Sociology, Criminology, and Criminal Justice courses. Dr. Bowman has been inducted into the George Mason University Evidence-Based Policing Hall of Fame, recognized by the African American Peace Officer Association as “Officer of the Year,” selected by the John Ben Shepperd Leadership Institute as an “Outstanding Local Texas Leader,” and has received Proclamations of Achievement from both the Texas State Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.
Chief Robert McNeilly is the current chief of Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania. Prior to moving to Elizabeth, Chief McNeilly served as Chief of Police of Pittsburgh, PA from April 1996 to January 2006. Chief McNeilly led his department through a U.S. Department of Justice Consent Decree in the mid-1990s, resulting in his department reaching substantial compliance and being released from the Consent Decree monitoring. He was also active as a United States Coast Guard Reserves Chief Petty Officer from 1987 to 2011, and is a United States Marine Corps veteran.
Chief Mary Ann Viverette served as Chief of Gaithersburg, Maryland for 21 years. As the first female president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Viverette led the agency through organizational change, while embracing the diversity of the community, and while facing the dramatic changes the population faced. In addition to serving on the Maryland Chiefs of Police Training Committee for over a decade, Chief Viverette, as a pioneer woman police chief, was often called upon to speak on issues affecting women and minorities in law enforcement. She conducted dozens of training sessions on the recruitment of women and minorities over a fifteen year period and has served as an Investigator with the Department of Justice.
Dr. Geoffrey Alpert is a Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina and an Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security, Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is an internationally recognized criminologist who specializes in research, training and the evaluation of highrisk police activities, including the use of force, deadly force, pursuit driving, racial profiling and accountability systems. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Advisory Council.
Dr. Alejandro del Carmen currently is a professor and chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. del Carmen
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 57 of 59

Page 57 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

earned a Ph.D. in criminology and criminal justice from Florida State University in 1997. His research interests include law enforcement, racial profiling, crime prevention and corrections. Dr. del Carmen has published over thirty-five refereed academic manuscripts in internationally recognized journals. His most recent book is titled Racial Profiling in America (2008), Prentice Hall Publishing.
Tracey Kennedy is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Litigation and Labor & Employment Practice Groups, working out of New York and Los Angeles. Tracey has extensive experience working in the area of race, gender, and other forms of discrimination cases, and has extensive experience working with employee unions. In the late 1990s, Tracey was retained by the County of Los Angeles to monitor the discriminatory hiring practices of the Sheriff’s Department. Tracey has been named one of the country’s “top woman litigators” by the Daily Journal.
Peter Morris is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts and Internal Investigations Practice Group. Prior to moving into private practice, Peter served an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California, where he led multiple fraud task forces. Peter has extensive experience working with federal and state law enforcement agencies, and was involved in monitoring the Los Angeles Fire Department following a state-mandated investigation in 1992. Peter is a graduate of Harvard Law School where he served on the Harvard Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Review.
Judith Dangerfield is a member of Metro-Source, LLC, a small planning and consulting firm in New Orleans. Ms. Dangerfield has been a small business owner for over 20 years and has been an advocate for economic equity in the rebuilding of New Orleans. Together with her late husband Dr. Peter W. Dangerfield she is co-author of Voice of the Poor: Citizens Participation in Rebuilding New Orleans, published in 2009 in Historical Inevitability: the Role of Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans Saga, a publication of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Omni Press, Wisconsin, 2009. Ms. Dangerfield holds a Master’s of Science in Community Economic Development from Southern New Hampshire University.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 58 of 59

Page 58 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

ATTACHMENT II: CRITICAL INCIDENT NOTIFICATIONS
The Consent Decree sets forth standards and procedures governing the use of force. The Consent Decree further provides that the Monitoring Team shall assess and report whether the requirements of the Consent Decree have been implemented. In order to comply with this mandate, the following Monitor notification process shall be implemented:
1. The Monitoring Team shall be notified, within one (1) hour of its occurrence, whenever any of the following events occur: A. Any Serious use of force as defined by the Consent Decree, meaning: i. any use of lethal force by an NOPD officer; ii. any critical firearm discharge by an NOPD officer; iii. any uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; iv. any uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; v. any canine bites; vi. any incident that involves more than two applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW) on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; vii. any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject; B. Any use of force indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer; C. Any in-custody death; D. Any use of force incident wherein the NOPD’s Force Investigation Team is mobilized and responds to the scene of the incident. E. Any major incident requiring mass mobilization of the Police Department.
2. Upon notification, the Monitoring Team will make an assessment of the incident to determine whether a Monitoring Team member will respond.
3. The notification will minimally include the following information: A. Location of Occurrence: (Address/Intersection/Description); B. Incident Details; C. Involved officer’s district/unit of assignment and rank; D. Nature and extent of injury to officer, if known; E. Nature and extent of injury to subject, if known; F. The name of the on scene supervisor.
4. When a Monitoring Team member responds to the scene of an incident, the team member(s) shall be granted access under the direction of the scene commander. Such access by the Monitoring Team will respect the need to secure the scene and not compromise any evidence therein.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 327-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 59 of 59

Page 59 of 59

www.consentdecreemonitor.com

November 29, 2013

ATTACHMENT III REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE & MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
1. Scope of Monitoring Team’s Review Obligations a. Serious use of force investigations b. Other use of force investigations subject to a misconduct investigation c. Serious misconduct complaint investigations
2. NOPD’s Initial Obligations. Provide each investigation to Monitoring Team before closing and before communicating disposition recommendation
3. Monitor’s Review Obligations a. Review investigation conducted by NOPD b. Recommend for further investigation any investigation i. That is not complete, or ii. Where the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence c. Provide instructions for completing investigation d. Coordinate with IPM e. Provide other feedback to NOPD as necessary
4. NOPD’s Subsequent Obligations a. Decide whether or not Monitoring Team recommendation should be carried out b. Set out any disagreements with Monitoring Team in writing
5. Timeline (to facilitate 60/120 day rule) a. NOPD gives Monitoring Team access to background materials within 10 days of initiation of investigation, where practicable b. NOPD provides Monitoring Team access to investigation file immediately upon completion c. Monitoring Team provides recommendation to NOPD within 5 business days, where practicable

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 126
New Orleans Consent Decree Monitor Second Quarterly Report May 27, 2014
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 126

WHAT’SINTHISREPORT?

WHAT WE DID THIS QUARTER

x

x

x
Officeofthe
x
ConsentDecree

Monitor

x



x



x



Second
QuarterlyReport x May2014



x

Covering

November1,2013– March31,2014 x





x







See

x

consentdecreemonitor.com

forfullreport







x



x



x



x



x

SheppardMullin

x

Richter&HamptonLLP

Performed field observations and assessed NOPD’s progress in complying with the many paragraphs of the Consent Decree. Reviewed and provided comments on NOPD’s policies and procedures. Reviewed Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) reports and attended Commander-level and Deputy Chief-level disciplinary hearings. Reviewed Use of Force Reports, Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) Reports, and PIB misconduct investigations. Began analyzing Vehicle Pursuit data, Canine data, and Racial Profiling data. Developed and initiated a Biennial Survey. Prepared for the future performance of the “outcome measurements.”
WHAT WE FOUND
NOPD continues to cooperate fully with the Monitoring Team and remains committed to meeting its obligations under the Consent Decree. NOPD continues to make significant progress meeting its Secondary Employment obligations. The Monitoring Team has been impressed by the efforts of NOPD Office of Police Secondary Employment Director John Salomone. The Monitoring Team has been impressed with the investigators and the investigations conducted by NOPD’s FIT. The overall FIT process, however, needs continued attention. NOPD has made inadequate progress (1) standing up an effective Consent Decree Implementation Unit, (2) writing (or re-writing) compliant policies, and (3) ensuring the Consent Decree’s requirements have been effectively communicated to and implemented in all police Districts.
Districts need to strengthen their internal record keeping practices to facilitate the Monitoring Team’s ability to assess compliance with the Consent Decree.
NEXT QUARTER’S ACTIVITIES
Continue monitoring compliance with all areas reported in this Quarterly Report. Observe Academy and In-Service training. Administer Biennial Survey. Continue reviewing and analyzing investigations and data. Continue reviewing Disciplinary Hearings.
Initiate performance of Consent Decree “outcome measurements.”

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 3 of 126 Page 3 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. Consent Decree Authority “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 4 of 126 Page 4 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. Notes “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Easter District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 5 of 126 Page 5 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IV. Table Of Contents
CONTENTS
I. What’s in this Report ............................................................................................................. 2 II. Consent Decree Authority .................................................................................................... 3 III. Notes .................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Table Of Contents................................................................................................................. 5 V. Glossary Of Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 12 VI. Introduction To Second Quarterly Report.......................................................................... 14 VII. Summary Of Monitoring Activities ..................................................................................... 16
A. Policy Reviews .................................................................................................................... 17 B. Meetings With NOPD ......................................................................................................... 17 C. Meetings With Community Stakeholders .......................................................................... 18 D. Document & Data Reviews................................................................................................. 18 E. Observation Of Officer Action And Conduct In The Field .................................................. 18 F. Compliance Reviews And Audits ........................................................................................ 19 G. Monitor Implementation Of Secondary Employment Program ........................................ 19 H. Biennial Survey ................................................................................................................... 20
1. The Police Survey........................................................................................................ 21 2. The Detainee Survey................................................................................................... 21 3. The Community Survey............................................................................................... 22 I. Observe Academy And In-Service Training ........................................................................ 22 J. Review Use Of Force and Misconduct Investigations ........................................................ 22 VIII. Implementation Deadlines................................................................................................. 24 IX. Detailed Findings ................................................................................................................ 28 A. Policies Generally ............................................................................................................... 28 B. Use of Force........................................................................................................................ 31 1. Policies ........................................................................................................................ 32
a. Use Of Force Policy........................................................................................................................................ 32 b. Use Of Force Continuum Policy................................................................................................................33
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 6 of 126 Page 6 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Vehicle Pursuits (CD 30-31) ........................................................................................ 34 3. Use Of Canines (CD 39-52).......................................................................................... 37 4. Notification To Force Investigation Team Of Serious Use Of Force Events ............... 39 5. Force Investigation Team (CD Paragraphs 96-107) .................................................... 39
a. CD Paragraph 96 ............................................................................................................................................ 39 b. CD Paragraphs 97-107.................................................................................................................................40 C. Stops, Searches, And Arrests (CD 122-162)........................................................................ 42 D. Custodial Interrogations (CD 163-170)............................................................................... 44 1. Interrogations and Restrictions .................................................................................. 44 a. CD Paragraph 163..........................................................................................................................................44 b. CD Paragraph 164..........................................................................................................................................44 c. CD Paragraph 165..........................................................................................................................................45 d. CD Paragraph 166.......................................................................................................................................... 45 e. CD Paragraph 167.......................................................................................................................................... 45 f. CD Paragraph 168.......................................................................................................................................... 45 2. Detective Selection And Interrogation Training......................................................... 46 a. CD Paragraph 169..........................................................................................................................................46 b. CD Paragraph 170..........................................................................................................................................46 E. Photographic Lineups (CD 171-175)................................................................................... 47 1. CD Paragraph 171 ....................................................................................................... 47 2. CD Paragraph 172 ....................................................................................................... 47 3. CD Paragraph 173 ....................................................................................................... 48 4. CD Paragraph 174 ....................................................................................................... 48 5. CD Paragraph 175 ....................................................................................................... 48 6. CD Paragraph 176 ....................................................................................................... 48 F. Bias-Free Policing (CD 177-194) ......................................................................................... 48 G. Policing Free Of Gender Bias (CD 195-222) ....................................................................... 49 1. CD Paragraph 195 ....................................................................................................... 51 2. CD Paragraphs 196-199 .............................................................................................. 51 3. CD Paragraph 200 ....................................................................................................... 52
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 7 of 126 Page 7 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. CD Paragraph 201 ....................................................................................................... 52 5. CD Paragraph 202 ....................................................................................................... 52 6. CD Paragraphs 203-205 .............................................................................................. 53 7. CD Paragraphs 206-208 .............................................................................................. 54 8. CD Paragraph 209 ....................................................................................................... 54 9. CD Paragraph 210 ....................................................................................................... 55 10. CD Paragraph 211 ....................................................................................................... 55 11. CD Paragraphs 212-213 .............................................................................................. 56 12. CD Paragraph 214 ....................................................................................................... 56 13. CD Paragraphs 215-216 .............................................................................................. 56 14. CD Paragraph 217 ....................................................................................................... 57 15. CD Paragraph 218 ....................................................................................................... 57 16. CD Paragraph 219 ....................................................................................................... 58 17. CD Paragraph 220 ....................................................................................................... 58 18. CD Paragraph 221 ....................................................................................................... 58 19. CD Paragraph 222 ....................................................................................................... 59 H. Recruitment (CD 234-244).................................................................................................. 59 1. CD Paragraph 234 ....................................................................................................... 60 2. CD Paragraph 238 ....................................................................................................... 60 3. CD Paragraph 241 ....................................................................................................... 61 4. CD Paragraph 243 ....................................................................................................... 61 5. CD Paragraph 235 ....................................................................................................... 61 6. CD Paragraph 236 ....................................................................................................... 62 7. CD Paragraph 237 ....................................................................................................... 62 8. CD Paragraph 239 ....................................................................................................... 62 9. CD Paragraph 240 ....................................................................................................... 62 10. CD Paragraph 242 ....................................................................................................... 62 11. CD Paragraph 244 ....................................................................................................... 63 I. Academy And In-Service Training (CD 245-288) ................................................................ 63 1. CD Paragraph 245 ....................................................................................................... 63
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 8 of 126 Page 8 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. CD Paragraph 246 ....................................................................................................... 64 3. CD Paragraph 247 ....................................................................................................... 64 4. CD Paragraph 248 ....................................................................................................... 65 5. CD Paragraph 249 ....................................................................................................... 65 6. CD Paragraph 250 ....................................................................................................... 65 7. CD Paragraph 251 ....................................................................................................... 65 8. CD Paragraph 258 ....................................................................................................... 66 9. CD Paragraph 259 ....................................................................................................... 66 10. CD Paragraph 260 ....................................................................................................... 66 11. CD Paragraph 261 ....................................................................................................... 66 12. CD Paragraph 264 ....................................................................................................... 67 13. CD Paragraph 265 ....................................................................................................... 67 14. CD Paragraph 266 ....................................................................................................... 67 15. CD Paragraph 267 ....................................................................................................... 67 16. CD Paragraph 268 ....................................................................................................... 68 17. CD Paragraph 269 ....................................................................................................... 68 18. CD Paragraph 270 ....................................................................................................... 68 19. CD Paragraph 271 ....................................................................................................... 68 20. CD Paragraph 272 ....................................................................................................... 69 21. CD Paragraph 275 ....................................................................................................... 69 22. CD Paragraph 276 ....................................................................................................... 69 23. CD Paragraph 277 ....................................................................................................... 69 24. CD Paragraph 278 ....................................................................................................... 70 25. CD Paragraph 279 ....................................................................................................... 70 26. CD Paragraph 280 ....................................................................................................... 70 27. CD Paragraph 281 ....................................................................................................... 70 28. CD Paragraph 282 ....................................................................................................... 71 29. CD Paragraph 283 ....................................................................................................... 71 30. CD Paragraph 284 ....................................................................................................... 71 31. CD Paragraph 285 ....................................................................................................... 71
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 9 of 126 Page 9 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
J. Officer Assistance And Support (CD 289-294).................................................................... 72 K. Supervision (CD 306-331) ................................................................................................... 73
1. Duties Of Supervisors ................................................................................................. 73 a. CD Paragraph 306..........................................................................................................................................73 b. CD Paragraphs 307-310..............................................................................................................................74 c. CD Paragraph 311..........................................................................................................................................75 d. CD Paragraph 312.......................................................................................................................................... 75 e. CD Paragraph 313.......................................................................................................................................... 75
2. Supervisor And Command-Level Training (CD Paragraphs 314-315)......................... 75 3. Early Warning System (CD Paragraphs 316-326) ....................................................... 75 4. Visual And Audio Documentation Of Police Activities ............................................... 76
a. CD Paragraph 327..........................................................................................................................................76 b. CD Paragraph 328..........................................................................................................................................77 c. CD Paragraph 329..........................................................................................................................................77 d. CD Paragraph 330.......................................................................................................................................... 77 e. CD Paragraph 331.......................................................................................................................................... 77 L. Secondary Employment System (CD 332-374)................................................................... 78 1. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office ............................................................. 79 a. CD Paragraph 332..........................................................................................................................................79 b. CD Paragraph 333..........................................................................................................................................79 c. CD Paragraph 334..........................................................................................................................................80 d. CD Paragraph 335.......................................................................................................................................... 80 e. CD Paragraph 336.......................................................................................................................................... 80 f. CD Paragraph 337.......................................................................................................................................... 80 2. Coordinating Office Responsibilities .......................................................................... 81 a. CD Paragraph 338..........................................................................................................................................81 b. CD Paragraph 339..........................................................................................................................................81 c. CD Paragraph 340..........................................................................................................................................81 d. CD Paragraph 341..........................................................................................................................................81 e. CD Paragraph 342.......................................................................................................................................... 82 f. CD Paragraph 343.......................................................................................................................................... 82
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 10 of 126 Page 10 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
g. CD Paragraph 344.......................................................................................................................................... 82 h. CD Paragraph 345.......................................................................................................................................... 82 i. CD Paragraph 346.......................................................................................................................................... 82 j. CD Paragraph 347.......................................................................................................................................... 83 k. CD Paragraph 348.......................................................................................................................................... 83 l. CD Paragraph 349.......................................................................................................................................... 83 m. CD Paragraph 350.......................................................................................................................................... 83 3. Secondary Employment Compensation ..................................................................... 84 a. CD Paragraph 351..........................................................................................................................................84 b. CD Paragraph 352..........................................................................................................................................84 c. CD Paragraph 353..........................................................................................................................................84 d. CD Paragraph 354.......................................................................................................................................... 84 4. Limitations On Secondary Employment Work ........................................................... 85 a. CD Paragraph 356..........................................................................................................................................85 b. CD Paragraph 357..........................................................................................................................................85 c. CD Paragraph 358..........................................................................................................................................85 d. CD Paragraph 359.......................................................................................................................................... 85 e. CD Paragraph 360.......................................................................................................................................... 86 f. CD Paragraph 361.......................................................................................................................................... 86 g. CD Paragraph 362.......................................................................................................................................... 86 h. CD Paragraph 363.......................................................................................................................................... 86 i. CD Paragraph 364.......................................................................................................................................... 86 j. CD Paragraph 365.......................................................................................................................................... 87 k. CD Paragraph 366.......................................................................................................................................... 87 5. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities................................................... 87 a. CD Paragraph 367..........................................................................................................................................87 b. CD Paragraph 368..........................................................................................................................................87 6. Secondary Employment Supervision .......................................................................... 88 a. CD Paragraph 369..........................................................................................................................................88 b. CD Paragraph 370..........................................................................................................................................88 c. CD Paragraph 371..........................................................................................................................................88
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 11 of 126 Page 11 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
d. CD Paragraph 373.......................................................................................................................................... 88 e. CD Paragraph 374.......................................................................................................................................... 89 M. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, And Adjudication (CD 375-426) ................ 89 1. CD Paragraph 378 ....................................................................................................... 89 2. CD Paragraph 379 ....................................................................................................... 89 a. ASU Performs Primarily PIB-Type Functions .................................................................................... 90 b. ASU Does Not Report To PIB.....................................................................................................................91 c. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 92 3. Discipline Process And Transparency (CD 421-425)................................................... 92 X. Agreement Implementation And Enforcement (CD 444-492) .......................................... 93 A. Review Of PIB Investigations (CD 454) ............................................................................... 93 B. Coordination With IPM (CD 459)........................................................................................ 94 C. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)...................................................... 95 D. NOPD And City Cooperation (CD 470-476) ........................................................................ 96 XI. What Are We Doing Next Quarter? ................................................................................... 96 XII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 97 XIII. Appendix I: Summary of Consent Decree Elements........................................................ 100 XIV. Appendix II: NOPD Policy Status Matrix .......................................................................... 104 XV. Appendix III: Vehicle Collision Data Analysis................................................................... 106 XVI. Appendix IV: NOPD Compliance Bureau Job Announcement......................................... 122 XVII. Appendix V: NOPD Canine Unit Deployment Analysis .................................................... 124 XVIII. Appendix VI: Force Review Data ...................................................................................... 126
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 12 of 126
Page 12 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Glossary Of Acronyms

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DVU” “ECW” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 13 of 126
Page 13 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVU” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Unit University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 14 of 126
Page 14 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. Introduction To Second Quarterly Report
In response to Mayor Landrieu’s request to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to assist the City of New Orleans to bring about the “complete transformation” of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”), the DOJ conducted an in-depth and comprehensive investigation of the NOPD’s policies and practices. That investigation resulted in a March 16, 2011 Report of Findings that documented numerous patterns or practices of unconstitutional policing. On July 24, 2012, the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ submitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) a proposed “Consent Decree” setting forth standards for constitutional policing the City and NOPD agreed to meet.
In crafting the Consent Decree, the City, NOPD, and DOJ agreed that “full and sustained implementation” of the various terms of the Consent Decree was necessary “to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of New Orleans, and increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.” (CD Introduction) To demonstrate full and sustained implementation of the Consent Decree (sometimes called “full and effective compliance” or “sustained compliance”), the NOPD must achieve the material requirements of the Consent Decree (or show sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing) consistent with several specific “outcome measures” (sometimes called “outcome assessments”) identified in the Consent Decree. (CD 491)
The Consent Decree is comprehensive and details specific areas for corrective action including: Use of Force; stops, searches, seizures, and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; bias-free policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct. (See Appendix I for a summary of each Consent Decree section.) The Consent Decree also called for the appointment of an Independent Monitor to serve as the eyes and ears of the District Court to report on the City’s and the NOPD’s compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree was approved by the District Court on January 11, 2013, and, after a lengthy selection process, on August 9, 2013, the District Court appointed the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP as the Consent Decree Monitor.
The Consent Decree Monitor (actually, a Monitoring Team) has a broad and important role under the Consent Decree: “To assess and report whether the requirements of [the Consent Decree] have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional and professional treatment of individuals by NOPD.” Yet, the role of the Monitoring Team is also limited in scope as the Team has only “the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by the [Consent Decree].” The Monitoring Team, for example, is not a replacement or substitute for the Police Department, the Superintendent, the Independent Police Monitor, or any other City entity.
As detailed throughout this Second Quarterly Report, NOPD continues to make progress toward full implementation of the Consent Decree. But, the NOPD still has a long way to go to come into full, effective, and sustained compliance with all material requirements of the Consent Decree. The difficulties the NOPD has had standing up its Consent Decree Implementation Unit,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 15 of 126
Page 15 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
crafting compliant and effective policies, and developing an effective training program give just a hint of the obstacles that stand in the way of full compliance.
This being said, based on our work and observations thus far, we believe the NOPD remains committed to the promises it made to the citizens of New Orleans (and its officers) in the Consent Decree. The NOPD leadership with whom we interact on a daily basis express seemingly genuine interest in making the NOPD a better police department and in effectuating the improvements guaranteed by the Consent Decree. Our daily interactions with the rank and file further confirm our view that within NOPD are a large number of dedicated, ethical, caring, and professional officers, most of whom not only are ready for change; they are longing for change. But change does not happen overnight. It comes with hard work, strong leadership, and patience.
Finally, it bears noting that, notwithstanding the many paragraph-specific findings that follow, compliance with the Consent Decree is not a numbers counting exercise. NOPD action to implement the specific Consent Decree paragraphs, while important, is only one part of the compliance equation. At the end of the day, it is the result of those actions that tells us whether the NOPD is marching toward its goals of “ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” (CD Introduction) Those results will be measured by our observations and analysis of how and whether the NOPD, in practice, from command staff to patrol officers, satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree, and by the New Orleans community’s experience and perceptions of how and whether the NOPD has met its commitment of full and sustained compliance with the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team issued its First Quarterly Report in November 2013. That Report described in greater detail the sequence of events that resulted in the Consent Decree and the appointment of the Monitoring Team. This is the Monitoring Team’s Second Quarterly Report, and covers November 2013 through March 2014.1

1

In order to bring the Consent Decree implementation and reporting activities into parallel

with the City’s Fiscal Year, this Second Quarterly Report is being issued in May 2014, and

covers activity from November 2013 through the first calendar quarter of 2014. Future Reports

will be issued on a quarterly basis.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 16 of 126
Page 16 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. Summary Of Monitoring Activities
To assess and report on NOPD’s progress toward full and effective compliance, the Monitoring Team does two things: (1) We determine whether the NOPD has complied with the many specific paragraphs of the Consent Decree; and (2) we assess whether, based upon the “outcome measurements” in the Consent Decree, NOPD’s efforts are resulting in constitutional policing.
We use a variety of methods and techniques to discharge our duties and assess compliance. First, we are in constant contact with the DOJ and the NOPD. The Consent Decree is a result of an investigation conducted by the DOJ. While it is our responsibility to monitor the NOPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree, the DOJ has a vested interest in ensuring the unconstitutional policing its investigation revealed is eliminated, root and branch. With respect to the NOPD, virtually every weekday of the year, as well as during some weekends and major events, we are present in New Orleans. We meet with officers, and attend training, hearings, and meetings. We visit the police Districts and the NOPD’s various specialty units. We accompany officers and supervisors on patrol (ride-alongs). We ask questions about NOPD’s policies, procedures, practices, and probe officers’ awareness of the Consent Decree’s requirements. In short, we observe the NOPD in action.
Second, we rely on and contribute the expertise our team possesses. Our team consists of former police chiefs, who are recognized experts on effective, constitutional policing. Our team also consists of nationally and internationally recognized academics on constitutional policing. As they observe and interact with the NOPD, they compare NOPD’s policies, procedures, and practices against the accepted standards for effective, constitutional policing. Our Monitoring Team not only evaluates and reports on whether the NOPD meets those standards, but we provide feedback to the NOPD on a real-time basis to make available to the NOPD the benefits of this collective expertise.
Third, we listen. Ultimately, the measure of the success of the changes called for in the Consent Decree is to improve policing for the people of New Orleans. We meet with oversight entities such as the New Orleans IG and the Office of the Independent Police Monitor, other law enforcement agencies such as the DA’s office, the U.S. Attorneys’ office, and others, and law enforcement stakeholder organizations such as the Metropolitan Crime Commission. We meet with groups that represent constituencies who were identified in the DOJ investigation that led to the Consent Decree to learn their perceptions of, and experiences with, the NOPD. Some of these groups are identified later in this report. These meetings help us understand how the community, NOPD’s customers, perceives and experiences their interactions with the NOPD. In this quarter, in fact, we began taking steps to conduct the formal Biennial Survey of New Orleans police officers, detainees, and the community required by the Consent Decree. The results of these surveys will provide invaluable insight into the experiences and attitudes of all segments of the law-enforcement community.
Quite simply, our work is intended and directed to help the parties realize their “goal of ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 17 of 126
Page 17 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” “The full and sustained implementation of the [Consent Decree] is intended to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve the safety and security of the people of New Orleans and increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.”
In this quarter we advanced that goal through the following activities: (1) evaluating NOPD’s policies; (2) interviewing NOPD personnel and others; (3) reviewing internal NOPD documents and data; (4) observing officers’ actions and conduct in the field; and (5) meeting with relevant community stakeholders to learn from their first-hand experiences with, and perceptions of, NOPD policies and practices. Our actions in each of these areas included the following:
A. Policy Reviews
As set forth in detail later in this Second Quarterly Report, the NOPD submitted to the Monitoring Team a number of policies for review and approval as required by the Consent Decree. We reviewed each submitted policy for clarity, comprehensiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with the specific requirements of the Consent Decree. In reviewing the policies, we drew on the expertise of the members of our Monitoring Team. For example, Professor Geoff Alpert is a leading expert in police pursuit and Use of Force policies. Professor Alex Del Carmen is similarly expert in bias-free policing. Additionally, each of our former police chiefs possesses deep and broad experience with police policy best practices and with policies used by other law enforcement agencies, and brings well-earned practical experience in how police department policies affect policing. We also conferred with the NOPD to understand the intent underlying each policy and how the policy related to Department practices. Along with the DOJ, we held day-long meetings during which NOPD explained its view of how the draft policies related to current and intended practices. The policies were reviewed line by line, drafting and substantive deficiencies were identified, modifications based on current best practices were suggested, and problems were either resolved or targeted for further development.
B. Meetings With NOPD
The Monitoring Team spent considerable time this quarter meeting with NOPD command staff, supervisors, and officers to gain understanding of and insight into how NOPD’s policies relate to the Department’s practices. We interviewed the officers responsible for training, recruitment, promotions, communications, the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”), the Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) of PIB, the Administrative Services Unit (“ASU”), Special Victims Unit (“SVU”), domestic violence, driver training, the Canine Unit, and much more. We observed training classes to understand how training was conducted and whether it effectively communicated NOPD policies and techniques to the officers. We asked individual officers whether they were aware of policies and whether they believed the policies gave them the information and guidance they needed to perform their jobs. We attended roll-calls, observed officers in the field, went on “ride-alongs” with officers and supervisors, and met with key personnel in every police District (and Headquarters) to assess their compliance with record-
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 18 of 126
Page 18 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
keeping requirements on such things as interrogations, photo lineups, visual/audio documentation, discipline, Use of Force, and supervision.
We also worked closely with DOJ, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Office of Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”), the New Orleans Office of Inspector General, the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”), and the newly created Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”). We attended meetings and/or met with the United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group, the Community Outreach and Law Enforcement Coordinator, the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, and the Metropolitan Crime Commission.
C. Meetings With Community Stakeholders
To gain understanding of the experiences, perceptions, concerns, and needs of the New Orleans community, we met with numerous community leaders and organizations that have worked with the NOPD or represent groups identified in the Consent Decree as especially vulnerable to unconstitutional policing. These groups included New Orleans’ Workers Center for Racial Justice; Latino Farmers Cooperative of Louisiana; La Coperativa; VAYLA and Puentes; College Students from Xavier University and Southern University at New Orleans (“SUNO”); an LGBT officer representative; Congress of Day Laborers; Rev. Oscar Ramos; Mary Howell, Esq.; and individual citizens, including citizens associated with Safe Streets/Strong Communities, the Citizens United for Change (“CUC”), and other organizations, who attended our Public Meetings following the issuance of our First Quarterly Report. We also met with or responded to inquiries from concerned citizens who had questions about our work or experiences with the NOPD they wanted to share.
D. Document & Data Reviews
We reviewed NOPD documents and data for evidence of compliance with both Department policies and the requirements of the Consent Decree. These records included Use of Force Reports; FIT investigations of serious Use of Force events; misconduct investigations; IPM reports on misconduct investigations; audio and video recordings relating to force and misconduct investigations; records of vehicle collisions; canine bite reports; arrest reports; racial profiling complaints; training materials; daily training bulletins; and more.
E. Observation Of Officer Action And Conduct In The Field
We attended roll-calls, ComStat meetings, and disciplinary hearings. We accompanied officers on patrol (ride-alongs), and met formally and informally with officers concerning their experiences, knowledge of Department policies, practices, and Consent Decree requirements. We observed crowd control management at events including Mardi Gras parades, Second Line parades, Mardi Gras Indian parades, and citizen protests. We also observed crime scene control and evidence collection.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 19 of 126
Page 19 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

F. Compliance Reviews And Audits
The Monitoring Team spent significant time reviewing and monitoring the NOPD’s practices and conduct this quarter in a wide array of substantive Consent Decree areas. We conducted compliance reviews and audits of FIT investigations into serious Use of Force events; supervisors’ Use of Force Reports documenting review of less serious Use of Force events; misconduct investigations completed by PIB; disciplinary hearings; records—including audio and video recordings—of custodial interrogations; records of vehicle collisions; canine bite reports; arrest reports; racial profiling complaints and training materials; and daily training bulletins. Our findings are detailed throughout this Second Quarterly Report.
G. Monitor Implementation Of Secondary Employment Program
Section XVI of the Consent Decree calls generally for the complete restructuring of its Secondary Employment practices (what have been colloquially called “paid details”) “to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community.” In response, the City created an Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”) to control and manage Secondary Employment under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) John Salomone, a civilian with no prior or current employment with the NOPD. OPSE currently has nine full-time civilian staff, none of whom has prior or current employment with the NOPD.
In December 2013, the City and the NOPD adopted and the Monitoring Team approved their respective Secondary Employment policies. OPSE’s policies are available on its website.2 Upon approval of those policies, on December 18, 2013, Superintendent Serpas circulated the policies to all officers and provided an explanation of how Secondary Employment would be regulated and managed by the City and the NOPD going forward. Importantly, he instructed all NOPD officers and employees that desired to work “details” to register with OPSE by January 10, 2014.
OPSE began managing details in February, 2014. To date:
x 262 officers have worked jobs under OPSE management (36% of authorized officers) x 183 customers and adding more daily (26 additional in process) x Over 15,000 hours worked x $342,000 paid to officers in 15 successful payrolls; over $314,000 paid since January 1,
2014 x Officer registration status:
o 812 officers have registered (70% of current NOPD personnel strength)

2

http://www.nola.gov/getattachment/OPSE/20131217-OPSE-External-Policy-V3-0.pdf/.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 20 of 126
Page 20 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

o NOPD Compliance Bureau has verified and approved 719 officers for secondary employment
Related to the City’s efforts to comply with the Secondary Employment provisions of the Consent Decree, on September 11, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Walter Powers, et. al., v. New Orleans City, et. al., was filed in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The Civil Service Commission also was named as a defendant in the suit. The suit claimed the City’s establishment of the OPSE and the process by which the City established pay rates for Secondary Employment violated the United States and Louisiana constitutions. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The City removed the suit to the District Court where it was consolidated with the Consent Decree proceedings. After a three-day bench trial, the District Court ruled neither the creation of the OPSE nor the pay plan violated the United States or the Louisiana constitutions, and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.3
H. Biennial Survey
The Consent Decree directs the City and the NOPD to “conduct a reliable, comprehensive and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perception of NOPD and of public safety.” (CD 230) The Consent Decree further provides that the Monitoring Team, with DOJ approval, will retain a local individual or entity to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety. The Consent Decree did not, however, specify the precise roles that the Monitoring Team, the City and NOPD, respectively would perform. Accordingly, with the District Court’s approval, the parties and the Monitoring Team worked collaboratively to develop a survey approach designed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree and to ensure an efficient implementation of this important project.
The approach agreed upon by the parties involves three elements: a Police Officer Survey, a Detainee Survey, and a Community Survey. Each survey instrument was designed by the Monitoring Team and reviewed and approved by the NOPD, the DOJ, and the District Court. Each instrument is tailored to the unique nature of the respondents.
To maximize participation in all three surveys, the Monitoring Team implemented redundant safeguards to ensure anonymity. First, all respondents are advised by the member of the Monitoring Team administering the survey that the surveys are anonymous. Second, the completed surveys are not shared with the parties; they are viewed only by the Monitoring Team and the District Court. Neither the City nor the DOJ will have access to the completed surveys. Third, the survey results are shared with the parties only in aggregated form. In other words, the

3

Powers, Jr., et al. v. New Orleans City, et al., No. 13-cv-05993 (E.D. La. filed Apr. 7,

2014).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 21 of 126
Page 21 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
results are not shared on a response-by-response basis. Consequently, the data resulting from the survey cannot be used to “back into” who said what.
The aggregated results of the survey (but not the individual responses) will be published in a future Quarterly Report of the Monitoring Team. The individual survey responses will be delivered by the Monitoring Team to the District Court.
To facilitate the coding of the data generated by each component of the Survey, the Monitoring Team selected the University of New Orleans (“UNO”) Survey Research Center (“SRC”) to take the lead on coding and preliminary data analysis. The UNO SRC provides high quality research services to people inside and outside of UNO. The SRC also provides training and experience in survey research to University graduate and undergraduate students. As of the publication of this Second Quarterly Report, the Monitoring Team was in the process of negotiating a contract with the SRC on behalf of the District Court. The Monitoring Team also is in the process of engaging with Southern University at New Orleans (“SUNO”) to secure additional local resources for the implementation of the Detainee and Community surveys. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working closely with both universities to ensure a smooth implementation of the first Biennial Survey.
A brief description of each component of the Survey project follows:
1. The Police Survey
The Police Survey includes 100 questions and covers such topics as police/community relations, internal NOPD culture, and Department resources and equipment. The Monitoring Team administered the survey to NOPD officers in April 2014. The survey was administered anonymously at roll-calls in each District, at selected roll-calls of units within the Special Operations Division (“SOD”), and at selected roll-calls in Investigative & Support and Public Integrity Bureaus. Task Force officers were surveyed at their roll-calls as well. A member of the Monitoring Team attended at least one roll-call for each shift (6 am, 2 pm, and 10 pm) in each District to maximize participation. NOPD management, including Superintendent Serpas and his leadership team, were given the Police Survey at a weekly “ComStat” meeting.
The Police Survey was introduced, distributed, and collected by a member of the Monitoring Team. To maximize participation, all officers and supervisors were advised that the survey was anonymous, that survey responses would not be shared with the NOPD or the City, and that only aggregated data would be made public.
2. The Detainee Survey
The Detainee Survey includes 50 questions and will be conducted within the Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”). The survey covers topics relating to the detainee’s arrest as well as more general questions regarding the NOPD, citizen/police relations, and policing in New Orleans more generally. The Monitoring Team will conduct in-person interviews at the OPP each day during the survey period. Detainees will be interviewed as they are brought from the OPP
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 22 of 126
Page 22 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
“Acceptance Area” into the “Intake and Processing Center” (“IPC”). At that time, a Monitoring Team member will ask the detainee if he/she is willing to take the survey, which will be read to the detainee by the Monitoring Team member. The interviews are expected to take 15 minutes, and a full week of interviews is expected to yield more than 200 interviews. As with the Police Officer interviews, each detainee will be advised that the survey is anonymous, that survey responses will not be shared with the NOPD or the City (or the Sherriff’s Office), and that only aggregated data will be made public.
3. The Community Survey
The Community Survey includes 82 questions and will be conducted house-to-house by local students engaged by the University of New Orleans on behalf of the Monitoring Team and the District Court. The survey covers topics relating to policing generally, the NOPD in particular, and police/community relations in New Orleans. The goal of the survey is to interview at least 500 randomly selected community members throughout the City. The neighborhoods and houses to be visited will be identified by the UNO using well-recognized sampling techniques designed to ensure a fair and objective sample that properly reflects New Orleans’s diversity.
As with the Police Officer Survey and the Detainee Survey, the forms completed by members of the community will not be shared with the City or with the Department of Justice. They will be maintained by the District Court. Only the aggregated data will be shared with the parties to the Consent Decree – and the public.
I. Observe Academy And In-Service Training
The Consent Decree requires the monitoring and observation of Academy and In-Service Training by the Monitoring Team. To date, the Monitoring Team has observed some of the Academy and In-Service Training while assessing the quality of the material covered as well as the quality of instruction. We also have developed an evaluation instrument to determine compliance in this particular area. Our monitoring of Academy and In-Service Training is an ongoing effort, which will be given heightened focus after training on Consent Decree compliant policies begins. We expect that in the next Quarterly Report a large enough sample of these evaluations will have taken place to permit an assessment of the quality and nature of Academy and In-Service Training as required by the Consent Decree.
J. Review Use Of Force and Misconduct Investigations
Paragraph 454 of the Consent Decree provides the Monitoring Team will be provided and will review each investigation of a serious Use of Force event or Use of Force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint before NOPD closes and reports its recommended disposition to the subject of the review. It also provides that the Monitoring Team will coordinate with the IPM in conducting these Use of Force and misconduct investigation reviews. Upon reviewing each serious Use of Force investigation and each serious misconduct complaint investigation, the Monitoring Team will
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 23 of 126
Page 23 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recommend for further investigation any Use of Force or misconduct complaint investigations determined to be incomplete or for which the findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Monitoring Team will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete or inadequately supported by the evidence. The Monitoring Team will offer recommendations for further investigation or modifications that can be incorporated while allowing NOPD to meet the deadlines mandated by state law.
Members of the Monitoring Team met with NOPD, specifically, the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) to understand how misconduct complaints are received, classified, logged, and tracked. Additionally, the Monitoring Team requested the following information for each serious Use of Force event, as defined in paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree,4 since August 9, 2013:
x FIT number x Date of occurrence x Name of officer who used force x Officer’s unit of assignment x Description of force used x Gist of incident x If officer is injured, the nature of injury x Name of arrestee x If injured, the nature of the injury x Item number x Date PIB/FIT notified x PIB number if one was assigned x 60/120 due dates x FIT investigator assigned
The Monitoring Team reviewed 5 investigations of serious Use of Force completed by FIT and 13 investigations of Level I and II Use of Force events conducted by district supervisors. Our findings are reported later in this Report.
4 Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree defines “serious use of force” as: (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all Use of Force events by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all Use of Force events by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (6) all canine bites; (7) more than two applications of an Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 24 of 126
Page 24 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. Implementation Deadlines
The Consent Decree establishes deadlines for certain tasks. These milestones provide a helpful gauge for the progress, status, and forecast for NOPD’s compliance efforts. The starting date for these deadlines is August 9, 2013, the date the Monitor was appointed.
CD Paragraph: 24 Due Date: October 9, 2013 Requirement: NOPD agrees to provide an opportunity for each officer and employee to learn about this Agreement and the responsibilities of each officer and employee pursuant to it. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance.
CD Paragraph: 247 Due Date: November 9, 2013 Requirement: NOPD agrees to create a full-time Department wide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, and designate a single training coordinator in each District and central organizational unit to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure that all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 64)
CD Paragraph: 317 Due Date: November 9, 2013 Requirement: The City and NOPD agree to create a plan for the implementation of the EWS which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS. The City and NOPD agree to maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 92)
CD Paragraph: 329 Due Date: November 9, 2013 Requirement: NOPD agrees to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and [Electronic Control Weapon] recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 77)
CD Paragraph: 425
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 25 of 126
Page 25 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Due Date: November 9, 2013 Requirement: The City agrees to request the Civil Service Commission to post online its full decisions related to NOPD discipline in a timely manner. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance.
CD Paragraph: 26 Due Date: August 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD shall set out a schedule for delivering all training required by this Agreement within 365 days of the Effective Date. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance.
CD Paragraph: 111 Due Date: December 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD and the City agree to implement a Crisis Intervention Planning Committee (“Planning Committee”) to direct the development and implementation of the CIT. The Planning Committee shall analyze and recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training methods regarding police contact with persons who may be mentally ill with the goal of de-escalating the potential for violent encounters. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 40)
CD Paragraph: 192 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to designate a language access coordinator who shall coordinate and monitor compliance with its language assistance plan. The language access coordinator shall assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the plan on an ongoing basis and shall report to the Superintendent or his designee regarding needed improvements and any accountability concerns. The Superintendent or his designee shall consider the information provided by the coordinator and respond as necessary to ensure that NOPD’s language assistance plan is effective. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 48)
CD Paragraph: 193 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to develop and implement a process of consultation with representatives of the LEP community to develop and at least annually review: implementation of the language assistance plan, including areas of possible collaboration to ensure its effectiveness; identification of additional languages that would be appropriate for translation of materials; accuracy and quality of NOPD language assistance services; and concerns, ideas, and strategies for ensuring language access. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p.48 )
CD Paragraph: 210
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 26 of 126
Page 26 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Due Date: August 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to work with the DA, community service providers, and other stakeholders to develop and implement a SART and collaborative SART agreement . . . to provide a coordinated and victim-centered approach to sexual violence. NOPD agrees to comply with its obligations under the SART collaborative agreement. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 55)
CD Paragraph: 223 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to reassess its staffing allocation and personnel deployment, including its use of specialized units and deployment by geographic area, to ensure that core operations support community policing and problem-solving initiatives, and shall agree to modify any deployment strategy found to be incompatible with effective and communityoriented policing. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance.
CD Paragraph: 229 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to remake the ComStat meeting. The ComStat meeting will use the underlying collection and reporting of accurate and meaningful data regarding crime trends and other public safety measures to drive discussion of community-policing successes and challenges. NOPD agrees to ensure the ComStat meeting includes discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them. NOPD agrees to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific deployment analysis to enable ComStat to better support and measure community and problem-solving policing efforts. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to provide audit data demonstrating compliance, and the Monitoring Team has not yet focused on the underlying data.
CD Paragraph: 230 Due Date: February 9, 2014 (and every two years thereafter) Requirement: NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 20)
CD Paragraph: 234 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD, working with Civil Service, agrees to develop a written, strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants. The strategic recruitment plan shall clearly identify the duties and goals of NOPD’s Recruitment Unit. The recruitment plan shall include specific strategies for attracting applicants
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 27 of 126
Page 27 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese (because these languages are spoken by a significant segment of the New Orleans Community), and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 60)
CD Paragraph: 238 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to develop and implement a system for psychological screening and assessment of all NOPD recruit candidates, and to set criteria to ensure that only individuals suitable for policing are accepted into NOPD training academy. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 60)
CD Paragraph: 241 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, agree to establish standardized qualifications and guidance for who may serve on a recruit applicant interview panel. Compliance Status: NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 61)
CD Paragraph: 243 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD and the City agree to work with Civil Service to establish a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists. Eligibility for serving on a recruit applicant interview panel shall include a review of the officer’s internal disciplinary file and personnel file. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance. (See full discussion at p. 61)
CD Paragraph: 248 Due Date: December 9, 2013 Requirement: NOPD agrees to establish a Training Advisory Committee that shall include staff from the NOPD Training Division, NOPD field personnel, high-level NOPD command staff (Deputy Superintendent or above), a community representative from the Police-Community Advisory Board, two representatives from area colleges and universities, an outside police professional with expertise in model training practices, and a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney’s Office, the USAO, and the City Attorney’s Office. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance. (See full discussion at p. 65)
CD Paragraph: 430 Due Date: December 9, 2013 Requirement: NOPD shall develop and implement a system of formal coordination between a command-level NOPD official and the DA, municipal and state court judges, the Orleans Public Defenders, the FBI, the USAO, and the IPM. This criminal justice coordination group shall be
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 28 of 126
Page 28 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
convened by the USAO and shall meet monthly to share regular feedback regarding the quality of NOPD arrests and indicia of misconduct; to refer specific allegations of misconduct for investigation; and to receive an update on the status of previous referrals. Compliance Status: NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance.
CD Paragraph: 432 Due Date: February 9, 2014 Requirement: NOPD agrees to develop and implement a Community Outreach and Public Information program in each NOPD District. Compliance Status: The Monitoring Team has not yet focused on this topic in depth.
VIII. Detailed Findings
As a prefatory matter, while we found NOPD to not yet be able to demonstrate compliance with many of the Consent Decree requirements, it should be remembered NOPD is in the early phases of this significant transformation. The mere fact the Department cannot yet demonstrate compliance with a particular requirement of the Consent Decree does not necessarily reflect a “failure” by the NOPD. To the contrary, it may simply mean the NOPD is progressing toward compliance.
While the Monitoring Team has begun the process of conducting the many “outcome measurements” identified in the Consent Decree, this Second Quarterly Report describes NOPD’s progress in meeting its specific obligations under the many detailed paragraphs of the Consent Decree. This Report does not cover every paragraph because not every paragraph is assessed every quarter. Consent Decree requirements not covered in this Report will be covered in a future Report. Ultimately, however, every material element of the Consent Decree will be reviewed, assessed, and reported on by the Monitoring Team. In short, the assessment here should be viewed as a snapshot of where the NOPD stands today with respect to complying with the Consent Decree; not a measure of its efforts to come into compliance or the prospects for future progress.
Finally, it bears repeating that, notwithstanding the many paragraph-specific findings that follow, compliance with the Consent Decree is not a numbers counting exercise. NOPD’s actions to implement the specific Consent Decree paragraphs, while important, are only one part of the compliance equation. At the end of the day, it is the result of those actions that tells us whether the NOPD is marching toward its goal of “ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” (CD Introduction)
A. Policies Generally
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to submit new and revised policies, procedures, and manuals related to specified provisions of the Consent Decree to the Monitoring Team and DOJ for review and comment prior to publication and implementation. As explained in our First
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 29 of 126
Page 29 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Quarterly Report, however, NOPD comprehensively revised its 1,038 page policy/procedure manual prior to appointment of the Monitoring Team without notifying the Court or the DOJ. Considering the volume of policies included in the manual and in light of the requirement that policies be reviewed by DOJ and the Monitoring Team within 15 days of receipt, the parties and the District Court recognized that 15 days was insufficient time to conduct the meaningful, thorough, and effective review necessary to ensure the NOPD’s policies result in effective guidance and constitutional policing. The importance of this requirement as the cornerstone upon which all other reforms will stand can scarcely be overstated. Obviously, clear, sound, constitutional policies will be the basis for officer and employee training and practices. (CD 16)
The Consent Decree specifically requires advance approval by DOJ and the Monitoring Team of policies related to: Use, Reporting, and Review of Force; Crisis Intervention Team; Stops, Searches, and Arrests; Custodial Interrogations; Biased Policing; Community Engagement; Academy and In-Service Training; Supervision; and Misconduct Investigations (the “specified provisions”). The parties agreed that NOPD would focus on submitting for review and approval the specified provisions.
The First Quarterly Report detailed the numerous, substantive deficiencies of the policies submitted by the NOPD to DOJ and the Monitoring Team. We stated in that Report NOPD is committed to redrafting the policies as they deemed appropriate and resubmitting them to the Monitoring Team and the DOJ for further review. We anticipated receiving revised policies “over the next several weeks.”
In December 2013, NOPD resubmitted a number of policies concerning the specified provisions: Firearms; Ammunition; Vehicle Pursuits; Canines; Search and Seizure; Custody Searches; Property Loss Report; Discriminatory Policing; Contacts, Detentions, and Photographing Detainees; Body Worn Camera; Misconduct Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations; and Disciplinary Hearings/Penalties. (During November and December, additional policies not falling within the category of the specified provisions also were submitted. These are addressed below.)
The resubmitted policies still exhibited many of the deficiencies previously identified to the NOPD. Additionally, for some of the policies, such as Misconduct Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations, it was not possible to understand the underlying practices they were intended to describe. In February, the NOPD, DOJ, and members of the Monitoring Team met face to face in an effort to discuss the deficiencies and move the policies toward compliance.
At the meeting, it became clear the policy deficiencies reflected two categoricallydifferent problems. The first, and easier to address, category consisted of drafting deficiencies; policies that did not adequately explain the underlying process or provide sufficiently specific guidance. The second, more difficult, problem concerned deficiencies that were not the result of flawed drafting, but where the DOJ and/or the Monitoring Team believed the underlying processes failed to conform to the requirements of the Consent Decree. These deficiencies cannot be cured by redrafting, but require a restructuring of the process. While the parties were
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 30 of 126
Page 30 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
able to make progress toward curing drafting deficiencies, resolving the underlying structural shortcomings is a more difficult, time-consuming process.
In the ensuing weeks, additional problems revealed themselves. First, our and DOJ’s review was hampered by not receiving all policies and procedures related to a policy area or specified provision. For example, NOPD submitted for review its Policy 301 (Use of Force Continuum), but has not submitted the underlying policy upon which it is based, Policy 300 (Use of Force). It is not possible to determine whether NOPD’s Use of Force policy complies with the Consent Decree’s requirements without the ability to review all Use of Force policies.
It is also clear the NOPD’s policy drafting process is seriously deficient. The NOPD’s revised policy manual was drafted by an outside vendor. (And, as noted in our First Quarterly Report, many of the resulting policies simply copied the Consent Decree’s language). The revision process, however, is being handled by NOPD internally. Despite inquiry, NOPD has been unable to explain its policy drafting process or identify the processes’ owners. Rather, responsibility appears to have reverted to the Executive Development Committee (“EDC”) and the Policy Review Committee (“PRC”) NOPD had assembled to review and refine the policies drafted by the vendor.
Neither the EDC nor the PRC appears to have the technical policy drafting expertise essential to drafting effective policies, nor do they appear to have engaged sufficient personnel assigned to drafting. On or about December 27, 2013, the Monitoring Team and DOJ provided feedback to NOPD on several policies submitted for review. On March 31, 2014, the NOPD resubmitted those policies for further review. It became immediately apparent, however, that, apart from minor editing changes, the majority of the policies reflected the same substantive deficiencies previously identified by DOJ and the Monitoring Team in December 2013.
While admittedly the insertion of the Monitoring Team into the policy review and approval process in August 2013 caused the NOPD to revamp the way it historically has gone about drafting policies, and, thus, added some additional complexity to its legacy processes, NOPD’s policy drafting and revision process nonetheless has been seriously hampered by a lack of technical skill, personnel, and policy drafting leadership. Consequently, the NOPD is not on track to meet its Consent Decree obligations with respect to policy drafting. Whether by devoting additional internal resources or by requesting technical assistance from the Monitoring Team or an outside entity, the NOPD needs to make compliance with the policy requirements of the Consent Decree a priority. The failure to set the cornerstone for the reforms contemplated by the Consent Decree will increase the City’s costs of complying with the Consent Decree by delaying implementation, review, and approval of sound, effective, constitutional policies. Even more important, it will delay achievement of the City’s commitment to improving police practices for the people of New Orleans. Working with the NOPD to remedy these deficiencies and expedite the policy revision process will be a priority in the current reporting quarter. We are optimistic that the NOPD efforts to hire personnel for its Consent Decree Implementation Unit will facilitate this effort.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 31 of 126
Page 31 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Additional discussion regarding the Monitoring Team’s findings with respect to specific NOPD policies is set forth within the Use of Force and Misconduct Investigation discussions below.
B. Use of Force
Section III of the Consent Decree states: “NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately.” The Monitoring Team reviewed and provided comprehensive oral feedback to NOPD on its current Use of Force policy (Policy 300). Our review concluded Policy 300 was not in compliance with thirteen of the twenty-three relevant paragraphs of the Consent Decree. As reported in our First Quarterly Report, we provided feedback to NOPD through a series of dialogues, one session of which covered the Use of Force policy in great detail. In addition to prompting material changes in the substance of the policies, as described above, the Monitoring Team’s feedback has caused NOPD to modify the way it goes about reviewing and revising its policies. While this change in approach has caused NOPD some additional delay, the Monitoring Team is optimistic the new approach will lead to more effective, more compliant policies.
While the absence of approved Use of Force policies is quite concerning, the Monitoring Team has not allowed that absence to delay its related monitoring responsibilities. Since the later weeks of 2013, we have been receiving timely notification of substantially complete investigations into serious Use of Force events. As a result, we were able to review five investigations by FIT. Generally, we found the investigations to be well done, as the findings in each case were based upon the preponderance of evidence uncovered by the investigator. Our review did, however, find deficiencies. Most of the deficiencies can be tied directly to the lack of approved policies on Use of Force events, Use of Force reporting, and investigation of use of force. Upon issuance of an approved Use of Force policy and FIT procedural manual, along with the requisite training, NOPD should anticipate coming into compliance on the force investigation related section of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team also reviewed thirteen Use of Force Reports. All thirteen files contained the required documents; that is, force statements from the officer using force and from identified witness officers, the incident report, and the Use of Force Report documenting the supervisor’s investigation. A force control number was obtained from PIB and attached to the Use of Force Report. Where the investigation indicated the arrestee was treated at the hospital, documentation was included. Three of the events involved use of a Taser. In all three the Taser report was included in the file. NOPD concluded in all thirteen investigations the force was justified. The Monitoring Team identified deficiencies, however. Two of the investigations were not in compliance with the Consent Decree. In one, the investigating supervisor was involved in the use of force. He physically assisted the officer in cuffing the resisting arrestee. In the other, there is no indication that the supervisor was ever on the scene of the use of force, that he viewed the arrestee or attempted to interview him.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 32 of 126
Page 32 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team’s efforts this period also included reviewing current certification and record keeping practices of the Canine Unit and assessing them against the requirements of the Consent Decree. We reviewed the current reporting system within the Canine Unit and were shown how files are maintained. We confirmed the existence of files for each handler and each canine as required by the Consent Decree. We viewed the training and certification records of the Canine Units lead trainer as well. We also reviewed all deployment reports with an apprehension for 2013 and through March 30, 2014. During a follow-up visit to the Canine Unit this quarter, the Monitoring Team reviewed all deployments for 2013 and 2014 (through March 30, 2014) involving an arrest. We reviewed a total of thirty seven deployment reports. Our review found twenty-four of the thirty-seven deployments were approved by a supervisor. Further analysis revealed all but one of the thirteen unapproved deployments occurred between January 1, 2013 and August 19, 2013. In a conversation with the SOD Captain, the Monitoring Team was informed that, subsequent to our conversation in August of 2013, he had implemented a policy requiring canine handlers to obtain approval from an SOD supervisor when the canine sergeant is unavailable. The Captain said there are ten sergeants assigned to SOD. All have received special training by the canine sergeant to equip them with the knowledge necessary to make canine deployment decisions. The deployment reports we reviewed contained documentation that the deployment was approved by a supervisor in all but one of the twentyfour deployments occurring since a requirement was implemented requiring canine handlers to obtain approval from an SOD supervisor when the canine sergeant is unavailable.
Importantly, the Monitoring Team’s findings this quarter relate primary to policies, procedures, and investigations regarding uses of force. The Monitoring Team’s detailed focus on the constitutionality of the uses of forces themselves will be conducted as part of the forthcoming “outcome assessments” contemplated by the Consent Decree. (CD 448)
1. Policies
The Monitoring Team spent significant time this quarter reviewing and assessing NOPD’s current Use of Force policies, specifically its general Use of Force policy (Policy 300) and its Use of Force Continuum policy (Policy 301). As of the end of the reporting quarter, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement with respect to either Policy 300 or Policy 310. NOPD has indicated it is interested in moving forward as expeditiously as possible with the approval of all of its policies and procedures, and the Monitoring Team shares this interest. NOPD officers currently are functioning under the unapproved, non-Consent Decree-compliant policy. The effects of the absence of a compliant policy are reflected in the quality of Use of Force reporting and investigations at the operations level of the Department. Further details concerning these findings appear below.
a. Use Of Force Policy
The Consent Decree sets forth standards and requirements governing the use of force. Generally, the NOPD agreed to develop and implement an overarching, agency-wide Use of Force policy that complies with applicable law and comports with best practices and current professional standards. The comprehensive Use of Force policy shall include all force
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 33 of 126
Page 33 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
techniques, technologies, and weapons, both lethal and less-than lethal, that are available to NOPD officers, including standard-issue weapons that are made available to all officers and weapons that are made available only to specialized units. The comprehensive Use of Force policy shall clearly define and describe each force option and the circumstances under which use of such force is appropriate. The general Use of Force policy will incorporate the Use of Force principles articulated above, and shall specify that the unreasonable Use of Force events will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
The Monitoring Team reviewed and provided comprehensive oral feedback to NOPD on its current Use of Force policy (Policy 300). Our review concluded Policy 300 was not in compliance with thirteen of the twenty-three relevant paragraphs of the Consent Decree. As reported in our First Quarterly Report, we provided feedback to NOPD through a series of dialogues, one session of which covered the Use of Force policy in great detail.
Among the deficiencies the Monitoring Team identified in the Use of Force policy were the following:
x The Purpose and Scope statement fails to alert the reader that, among other issues, the ensuing guidance sets out the principles and values of the NOPD, and covers the circumstance in which an officer is authorized to use force, the level of force that is allowed based upon the level of resistance the officer confronts, and the reporting and investigating requirements in the aftermath of a use of force event.
x The policy does not always conform to specific requirements of the Consent Decree. For example, though the Consent Decree includes clear definitions of terms related to force, the policy did not always use the Consent Decree definitions.
x The Consent Decree makes a distinction between active resistance and defensive resistance; the NOPD policy incorporates defensive resistance into the definition of active resistance, thereby making no distinction between the two levels of resistance.
x The notification, reporting, and investigative duties of police officers, supervisors and command personnel are not presented in an orderly manner, making it difficult for a reader to understand what is expected of him/her.
In short, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement with respect to Policy 300.
b. Use Of Force Continuum Policy
On March 31, 2014, NOPD forwarded a draft of Policy 301, Use of Force Continuum, to the Monitoring Team and to the DOJ. The Consent Decree does not require the Department to adopt a force continuum but the Monitoring Team agrees that it is a valuable adjunct to the force policy. This policy, however, covers only a portion of the policy requirements related to Use of Force. As noted above, NOPD has not resubmitted Policy 300, which sets forth the NOPD’s
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 34 of 126
Page 34 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
basic Use of Force policy. Without this foundational policy, the Monitoring Team is unable to review meaningfully the derivative Use of Force policies, like Policy 301.
2. Vehicle Pursuits (CD 30-31)
Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Consent Decree deal with Vehicle Pursuits. Among other things, paragraph 30 prohibits vehicle pursuits “except where an officer obtains express supervisory approval, and the officer and supervisor have considered multiple factors and determined that the immediate danger to the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large.” Paragraph 31, on the other hand, focuses on the tracking and analysis of vehicle pursuits. Specifically, paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “track and analyze vehicle pursuits, including the violation that prompted the pursuit; the officer(s) involved in the pursuit; the supervisor approving the pursuit; the outcome of the pursuit; any officer, suspect, or bystander injuries or deaths; property damage; and related criminal or civil legal actions.” The Consent Decree further requires that such data and analysis “be included in the EWS and in NOPD’s Use of Force Annual report.”
The Monitoring Team spent time this quarter reviewing NOPD’s data relating to vehicle pursuits. Our initial review reveals NOPD is maintaining significant data regarding vehicle pursuits, and that NOPD is capturing the right data elements. NOPD is not, however, compiling the data properly in accordance with the best practices provided by the Monitoring Team. For example, although NOPD can provide high-level summary reports, the Department cannot identify and provide data from individual pursuits. Such data, once compiled properly, will serve as a baseline for future monitoring and will permit a number of instructive analyses.
Although not directly relating to the Consent Decree, NOPD also provided data relating to officer-involved collisions. These data are tangentially related to the vehicle pursuit requirements of the Consent Decree, but are critically important for monitoring and assessing officer safety related to collisions. The Monitoring Team spent significant time analyzing these data, and our initial assessment of those data is attached to this Report at Appendix III and is summarized below.
x NOPD officers were involved in a total of 1,620 collisions between 2007 and 2013. February, May, and July were the three months with the highest frequencies of collisions. The average number of crashes in these months is 22.43 in February, 22.14 in May and 21.86 in July while the total average of crashes is 19.29 per month. See Table 1, Frequency of Collisions by Year and Month.
x The number of collisions was relatively similar across years. However, 2011 and 2013 had significantly fewer officer-involved collisions. The number of collisions in these years was between 28% and 45% less than the other years. See Table 1, Frequency of Collisions by Year and Month.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 35 of 126
Page 35 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
x NOPD Division 2 accounted for the largest proportion of all collisions between 2007 and 2013, but other Divisions followed closely behind (e.g., Divisions 1, 5, and 8). See Table 2, Division of Assignment for Collisions 2007-2013.
x The highest number of collisions between 2007-2013 occurred in 2009 by division 8. See Table 3, Divisions of Assignment with Most Collisions by Year.
x The average age of an NOPD officer involved in a collision between 2007 and 2013 is 38. The youngest officer involved in a collision was 21 and the oldest was 83, according to the data provided by NOPD. The average number of years on the job for an officer involved in a collision was 11.5. The length of tenure ranged from 1 to 53 years for collision-involved officers. An overwhelming majority of collisions occur during “routine” driving practices (94.5%). About 4% of collisions involved emergency driving. Damage was reported as follows: 61% light damage, 25% moderate damage, and 13% heavy damage. Almost all collisions occurred during “good” weather conditions (96%). Rain was present in just over 3% of collisions. See Table 4, Collision Characteristics 2007 through 2013.
x Over one-third of collisions resulted in charges against the officer (35.5%). With respect to reprimands, almost all officers involved in the collisions were sent to driving school (94.3%). The most common length of suspension was 1 day (18.4%) and 43.3% of officers received a letter of reprimand. The average length of time between the accident date and a board hearing (for those that had a hearing) was 196.81 days. The lag between collision and hearing ranged from 36 to 533 days. See Table 4, Collision Characteristics 2007 through 2013.
x When compared to the other Divisions, officers in Divisions 5, 6, and 7 seem to have a greater chance of having charges brought against them after a collision, with Division 6 having the highest percentage (47%). In terms of frequency, when compared to other Divisions, officers in Division 2 had the highest number of charges brought against them (68 charges). Regarding those with the lowest percentage of charges filed, Division 1 collisions had the lowest percentage of cases where charges were filed (67.1%). In terms of frequency, Division 2 collisions had the lowest number of cases where charges were filed (109 no charges). See Table 5, Frequency of Collisions by Division of Assignment (1 through 8) for Charge vs. No Charge.
x The percentage of collisions that result in charges and no charges seems to be relatively stable over the years. However, it does appear that charges become slightly less frequent in the most recent years (2012 and 2013). See Table 6, Frequency of Collisions by Year for Charge vs. No Charge.
x A higher percentage of collisions in Platoons 2 and 3 seem to result in charges when compared to Platoon 1. See Table 7, Frequency of Collisions by Platoon Shift for Charge vs. No Charge.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 36 of 126
Page 36 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
x Charges are more likely if an officer was engaging in emergency driving. If a “collision” occurs while parked the officer is not likely to be charged. See Table 8, Frequency of Collisions by Driving Code for Charge vs. No Charge.
x If “minor” injuries were sustained these officers are the least likely to be charged. See Table 9, Frequency of Collisions by Injury for Charge vs. No Charge.
x Except for the “no damage category” (which has a very small N), a higher percentage of officers are charged when there is damage sustained in the collision. See Table 10, Frequency of Collisions by Damage Scale for Charge vs. No Charge.
x Overall, it appears that weather conditions have little relationship with charging decisions. See Table 11, Frequency of Collisions by Weather Conditions for Charge vs. No Charge.
x On average, those officers who are charged are slightly younger than those not charged. On average, those officers who are charged have less time on the job. See Table 12, Collision Characteristics for Charge vs. No Charge by Officer Characteristics.
x Officers in Divisions 5, 6, and 7 are each 50% more likely than the “other divisions” (e.g., homicide, sex crimes, traffic, etc.) to have charges filed against them. For every one year increase in an officer’s tenure, his/her odds of being charged after a collision reduce by about 3.5%. In more realistic terms, an officer who has been on the job for 5 years is about 17.5% less likely than a rookie to have charges filed against him/her, all else equal. Thus, more experienced officers are less likely to be charged. See Table 13, Logistic regression equation for the effects of officer and collision characteristics on charge decision.
x If an officer was engaged in “emergency driving” before the collision, he/she is about 142% more likely to be charged than an officer engaging in other driving (e.g., normal patrol or being parked). See Table 13, Logistic regression equation for the effects of officer and collision characteristics on charge decision.
x Officers who are injured in the collision are 55% less likely to be charged compared to officers who are not injured. The odds of being charged increase by about 31% if the collision resulted in some form of damage. See Table 13, Logistic regression equation for the effects of officer and collision characteristics on charge decision.
These data will serve as a baseline against which the Monitoring Team can track NOPD’s progress as it works to come into full compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree as they relate to Vehicle Pursuits.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 37 of 126
Page 37 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
3. Use Of Canines (CD 39-52)
Though the existing Department-level Canine Policy has not yet been approved by DOJ or the Monitoring Team, it serves as the current policy guide for the Canine Unit. In addition, in January 2012, the Canine Unit issued a unit-level Policy and Operating Procedures directive that builds upon the requirements set out in the Department Policy. The Canine Unit sergeant and trainer have implemented practices based on those two documents. (CD 38, 52)
The Monitoring Team’s efforts this period consisted of reviewing current certification and record keeping practices of the Canine Unit and assessing them against the requirements of the Consent Decree. We reviewed the current reporting system within the Canine Unit and were shown how files are maintained. We confirmed the existence of files for each handler and each canine as required by the Consent Decree. We viewed the training and certification records of the Canine Unit’s lead trainer as well. We also reviewed all deployment reports with an apprehension for 2013 and through March 30, 2014. (CD 48, 50)
The Canine Unit is part of the Special Operations Division and is comprised of one sergeant, six patrol dog teams, and one drug dog team. The patrol dog teams are cross-trained into at least one additional specialty, for example, tracking and narcotics or tracking and munitions.
Training and certification records for each handler and each canine are maintained in a separate file. The training and certification records of the lead trainer, who is also assigned a patrol dog, are maintained in a separate file. Records indicate all handler/canine teams possess a current certification, and we confirmed the existence of records of the certification in each handler’s training records file. The NOPD uses two different certification agencies, the National Narcotics Detection Dog Association (“NNDDA”) and the National Police Canine Association (“NPCA”). During one of our visits, we observed the certification test of three teams by the NNDDA. All three teams received certification. (CD 48, 50)
Though we have not yet observed certification testing by the NPCA, we were informed by the SOD Captain that all but one of the canine teams passed. The team that failed to meet the certification requirements is comprised of a recent pairing of the unit’s most junior handler with a recently acquired canine. The Captain informed us the team will undergo remedial training and be retested by the certifying agency in the near future. We will review the handler’s certification and training record on subsequent visits to the Canine Unit. (CD 48, 50)
NOPD Canine Unit training occurs Tuesday of each week. The Monitoring Team observed two training sessions this quarter. Only one of the observed sessions was completed; the second was interrupted by a call out of the Canine Unit to assist in the search for two suspected armed subjects. During the session observed, we found the canines were compliant with recall and release commands as required by the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree requires that a canine supervisor be on-call or on-duty at all times. With only one sergeant assigned to the Canine Unit, it is not possible for him to cover canine
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 38 of 126
Page 38 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
operations 24/7. During our visit to the Canine Unit in August 2013, we reviewed several canine deployment reports and found they lacked documentation that the deployment was approved by a supervisor. We identified this deficiency to the sergeant and his superior, the SOD Captain. The canine sergeant explained that when he is not available, the canine handler is the most knowledgeable person to make the deployment decision and it is NOPD’s current practice to leave the decision to him/her. We pointed out that the Consent Decree and best practices require the decision to be made by a supervisor. We suggested the Department should provide guidance through policy and training to other supervisors so that they have sufficient knowledge to make proper deployment decisions. (CD 41)
During a follow-up visit to the Canine Unit this quarter, the Monitoring Team reviewed all deployments for 2013 and 2014 (through March 30, 2014) involving an arrest. We reviewed a total of thirty seven deployment reports. Our review found twenty-four of the thirty-seven deployments were approved by a supervisor. Further analysis revealed that all but one of the thirteen unapproved deployments occurred between January 1, 2013 and August 19, 2013. In a conversation with the SOD Captain, the Monitoring Team was informed that, subsequent to our conversation back in August of 2013, he had implemented a policy requiring canine handlers to obtain approval from an SOD supervisor when the canine sergeant is unavailable. The Captain said there are ten sergeants assigned to SOD. All have received special training by the canine sergeant to equip them with the knowledge necessary to make canine deployment decisions. The deployment reports we reviewed contained documentation that the deployment was approved by a supervisor in all but one of the twenty-four deployments occurring since that practice was implemented. (CD 48)
Of the twenty-seven deployments with apprehension occurring in 2013, seven indicate the deployment resulted in a bite to the suspect, for a bite ratio of 26%. (CD 51) The Monitoring Team received a copy of the Canine Unit’s statistical report. It contains a spreadsheet with statistics that track each officer’s apprehensions by month, including information on whether a bite occurred. It also includes calculation of bite ratios. For 2013, the report shows a bite ratio of 22%, different from the bite ratio we independently developed. The difference between our analyses is the number of total apprehensions. Both analyses show seven bites for the year, but NOPD’s data show 32 apprehensions whereas the Monitoring Team’s review identified 27 apprehensions. In the ensuing months, we will review the documents supporting NOPD’s statistics and seek to understand the reasons for the delta.
The Consent Decree (CD 100) requires the canine supervisor notify FIT in every incident involving a canine bite. In the thirty-seven deployments we reviewed, thirteen resulted in bites. FIT was notified in nine of the thirteen. Since August 2013, after our first visit with the Canine Unit, FIT was notified and responded to every deployment resulting in a bite. Based on our review of the deployment reports, all thirteen subjects were wanted for violent felonies or could have reasonably been expected to be armed. (CD 43)
Appendix V to this Quarterly Report is a spreadsheet reflecting the canine data underlying the foregoing findings. The Monitoring Team’s review this quarter was limited to documents maintained at the Canine Unit office. The investigations into the canine deployments
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 39 of 126
Page 39 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
and bites conducted by the FIT team will be the subject of further monitoring and subsequent reports. Additionally, as with other uses of force, the Monitoring Team will be conducting “outcome assessments” that focus on the proprietary and constitutionality of canine deployments, including an assessment of “bite ratios” broken down, where possible, by type of arrest, age, race, gender, and ethnicity. (CD 448)
4. Notification To Force Investigation Team Of Serious Use Of Force Events
Paragraph 454 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “provide each investigation of a serious use of force event or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint investigation (i.e., criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft)” to the Monitoring Team before closing the investigation or communicating the recommended disposition to the subject of the investigation or review. (See our report on ¶375-420 for further discussion on review of serious misconduct investigations.)
Since the later weeks of 2013 we have been receiving timely notification of substantially complete investigations into serious Use of Force events. As a result, we were able to review five investigations by FIT.
5. Force Investigation Team (CD Paragraphs 96-107)
While the absence of approved Use of Force policies is quite concerning, the Monitoring Team has not allowed that absence to delay our related monitoring responsibilities. As reported above, the Monitoring Team has reviewed several FIT investigations of serious Use of Force events, as well as a sample of field supervisors’ Use of Force Reports of their investigation into Level 1 and Level 2 Use of Force events, to assess whether officers and supervisors are complying with the reporting requirements contained in the existing but not yet approved policies. Our review revealed the NOPD FIT has made strides in improving the quality of investigations into serious Use of Force events. The lack of a compliant policy and training, however, continues to impact negatively the quality of NOPD’s Use of Force reporting by field supervisors and investigations at the operations level within the Department. Those Consent Decree paragraphs for which we have been able to make specific findings are set forth below.
a. CD Paragraph 96
Paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to establish a single, uniform reporting and investigation/review system for all Level 4 Use of Force events (i.e., serious Use of Force events, including critical firearm discharges). NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 40 of 126
Page 40 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As previously reported, the Department has yet to obtain approval of its Use of Force policy and its policy on reporting Use of Force. Additionally, it has yet to issue a FIT standard operating procedure manual. Nevertheless, the Use of Force policy found in NOPD’s current policy and procedure manual partially satisfies the requirement of paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree. The first responding supervisor at the scene of a serious Use of Force event is required to notify the NOPD command desk who then notifies FIT. FIT is required to respond to the location, take control of the scene and commence its investigation. In our review of five Level 4 Use of Force events, we found that FIT was notified in a timely manner and responded to the location with sufficient staff to complete the required investigative tasks.
b. CD Paragraphs 97-107
Paragraph 97 of the Consent Decree provides NOPD shall ensure all serious Use of Force events are investigated fully and fairly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence, and investigative skills to ensure Use of Force events that are contrary to law or policy are identified and appropriately resolved. The Consent Decree further requires that NOPD create a FIT to conduct investigations of serious Use of Force events, Use of Force events indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer, Use of Force events by NOPD personnel of a rank higher than sergeant, or Use of Force events reassigned to FIT by the Superintendent or his designee or PIB. The Consent Decree also requires that, within 280 days from the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to recruit, assign, and train a sufficient number of personnel to FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members shall receive 40 hours of FIT-specific training in FIT procedures; call out and investigative protocols; proper roles of on-scene counterparts such as crime scene technicians, the Monitor, the DA, the IPM, and the City Attorney’s Office; and investigative equipment and techniques. FIT members must receive FIT-specific annual In-Service Training. NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was unable to demonstrate full compliance.
The NOPD has established a Force Investigation Team as a unit within PIB. FIT is commanded by a lieutenant and staffed with three sergeants and a detective. The Monitoring Team obtained copies of the resumes of the staff and found each member possessed extensive and relevant investigative experience.
x The lieutenant has four years as an investigative supervisor and two as a sergeant in the Homicide Division. He also has seven years’ experience as a detective in district violent crimes units.
x The sergeant with the primary duty of conducting administrative investigations into serious Use of Force events has five years’ experience as a PIB investigator. Prior to being assigned to PIB, he served three years as a district detective.
x Both sergeants assigned to conduct the criminal investigation into serious Use of Force events also have significant investigative backgrounds. One worked as an investigator in the Homicide Division for five years and, prior to that, was assigned to a district shooting squad where he investigated non-fatal police shootings. The other worked in the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 41 of 126
Page 41 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Homicide Division as a major case squad detective for five years and as a district detective investigating non-fatal police shootings. x The recently assigned detective has twelve years’ investigative experience, working in the NOPD Homicide Division and the sex crimes section.
Based upon the Monitoring Team’s review of five Use of Force investigations, we found FIT investigators exhibited the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary to conduct the often complicated investigations into police Use of Force events. The FIT personnel showed competency in their investigating, interviewing, interrogating, and writing abilities, and evidenced strong analytical skills. They also displayed the necessary objectivity and integrity their assignment requires.
Though they brought to their FIT assignment significant knowledge, skills, and abilities, FIT personnel clearly have recognized the need for specialized training in investigating police involved shootings and other serious Use of Force issues. Since the creation of the FIT unit, one or more members of FIT have attended the following training:
x Force Investigations Team Class (March 2012): 40 hours at PIB o Taught by LAPD Force Investigation personnel o Among subjects presented: OIS team leader functions, immediate notifications, crime scene processing, investigative strategies, interviewing civilian witnesses, sworn officer witnesses, case completion and presentation, and legal aspects of OIS investigations.
x FBI/PIB Investigations Class (March 2013): 40 Hours at PIB o Taught by FBI o Among subjects presented: ethical policy, interviews and interrogations, evidence, and crime scene management.
x Criminal Investigation of Deadly Force and Officer Involved Shootings: 20 hours in Lake County, Florida o Taught by David Rivers of the Public Agency Training Council o Among subjects presented: 12 High Risk Tasks, Investigations, Documentation, Warrants, Memory and Trauma, Interviewing Involved Officers, Procedural Issues, Miranda.
x Internal Affairs, Citizen Complaints and Officer Discipline o Taught by Lou Reiter
The PIB Deputy Superintendent, the PIB Commander, and the FIT Lieutenant each expressed recognition and a desire to provide the FIT with additional training. While NOPD is not yet in full compliance with respect to its FIT-related obligations under the Consent Decree, the FIT unit should be commended for its knowledgeable and dedicated personnel, their obvious interest in continuing education, and the unit’s progress toward full compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 42 of 126
Page 42 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
During the reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team was able to review five completed FIT investigations. Generally, we found the investigations to be well done. The findings in each case were based upon the preponderance of evidence uncovered by the investigator. In none of the investigations did we find any deficiencies that, if corrected, would have affected the preponderance of evidence. In cases involving serious Use of Force events, FIT received timely notification from the field supervisor, responded to the scene in a timely manner, took charge of the scene, gathered and preserved evidence, identified and interviewed involved and witness officers, conducted a canvass and interviewed civilian witnesses, and recorded all interviews of officers and citizens. The investigator avoided giving preference to officers over civilians and based the finding on a preponderance of evidence. The criminal aspect of the incident was conducted by the Criminal Unit of FIT, not by the Department’s Homicide Division. The administrative investigation was isolated from the criminal investigation and conducted by FIT’s Administrative Unit. In one of the cases, criminal charges were indicated and presented to the DA for prosecution. The DA’s office declined prosecution.
Our review did, however, find deficiencies. Most of the deficiencies can be tied directly to the lack of approved policies on Use of Force events, Use of Force reporting, and investigation of use of force. Upon issuance of an approved Use of Force policy and FIT procedural manual, along with the requisite training, NOPD should anticipate coming into compliance on the force investigation related section of the Consent Decree.
Deficiencies found include: lack of uniformity in the investigative process and report format; failure to complete a preliminary report and forward it to the Superintendent or his designee within 24 hours; identification of any policy, training or equipment implications derived from the investigation; and lack of documentation that recommended follow-up action to remediate deficiencies uncovered by the investigation actually occurred. In the case presented to the DA’s office, the FIT investigator was not given any feedback as to why the DA chose not to proceed with criminal prosecution.
Additionally, although paragraph 106 of the Consent Decree requires that the FIT complete a preliminary report to present to the Superintendent or his designee as soon as possible, but in no circumstances later than 24 hours after learning of the Use of Force, our review of FIT investigations into serious Use of Force events discovered no such report. In a conversation with a FIT investigator, we were informed there is currently no requirement that such a report be prepared. If the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent wants information on the event and/or the progress of the investigation within the first 24 hours, or at any time, the investigator must send a copy of his/her summary report that is initiated the day of the event, and is updated and compiled through the life of the investigation.
C. Stops, Searches, And Arrests (CD 122-162)
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD further must ensure investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy; are consistent with community priorities for enforcement;
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 43 of 126
Page 43 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
and are carried out with fairness and respect. The Monitoring Team began gathering and analyzing NOPD’s stop, search, and arrest data, but the substance of this analysis will be performed in a future quarter. It should be noted, however, the Monitoring Team did find NOPD’s systems and documentation currently to be inadequate to meet NOPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree. For example, much of the documentation regarding stops, searches, and arrests required by the Consent Decree has not yet been implemented by the NOPD. Other processes, for example, the City’s process for having officers complete Field Interview Cards and then capturing those cards in a meaningful way, also have significant shortcomings. These inadequacies and shortcomings have made it hard for the Monitoring Team to focus on this area of the Consent Decree. We have raised these issues with the NOPD and are working closely with the NOPD to ensure these critical gaps are remedied promptly and in advance of the forthcoming “outcome assessments” required by the Consent Decree.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining the data necessary, the Monitoring Team, did assess compliance with paragraph 149 of the Consent Decree this quarter. Paragraph 149 provides generally, within 270 days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, NOPD “shall develop a written or electronic report format to collect data on all investigatory stops and searches, whether or not they result in an arrest or issuance of a citation.” The Consent Decree outlines specific information concerning the capabilities of the system.
While the NOPD is progressing toward compliance with this requirement, currently, the NOPD lacks the data and analytics capabilities to assess whether NOPD officers engage in racial profiling. According to the NOPD PIB, ten racial profiling complaints were filed in 2013. All ten complaints were reviewed by the Monitoring Team. Our review showed that all ten complaints were investigated the PIB and that the investigative approach was consistent in each case. None of the investigations, however, involved a review of the officer’s prior history to determine whether there had been prior complaints of a similar nature.
The Monitoring Team’s review further revealed NOPD has not established policies or procedures for investigating a racial profiling complaint. Consequently, each investigating officer has wide discretion with respect to how to investigate the complaint and what standards to apply to the challenged conduct. The absence of established definitions of racial profiling or investigative standards makes it difficult to determine reliably what conduct was investigated or the types of evidence an investigative officer should obtain and consider.
As the NOPD moves toward compliance with paragraph 149 of the Consent Decree, it will acquire the ability to perform data-driven comparative analyses as part of investigating racial-profiling complaints. At the moment, however, the NOPD is unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. We note, however, the Department has received approval to hire new personnel whose primary responsibility, according to the NOPD, will be to enhance the Department’s data collection mechanisms to meet the standards set forth in the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 44 of 126
Page 44 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D. Custodial Interrogations (CD 163-170)
This section of the Consent Decree requires officers to refrain from violence or threats of violence to obtain statements during interrogations. The section further requires the NOPD to ensure that custodial interrogations in a police facility are video and audio recorded, that qualified interpreters be used during interrogations, that all equipment failures be documented, and that officer notes be maintained in case files. Our specific findings regarding Custodial Interrogations follow.
1. Interrogations and Restrictions
a. CD Paragraph 163
Paragraph 163 of the Consent Decree provides that officers shall not use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual’s family during custodial interrogations. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
PIB personnel report they received one complaint within the past few months of a threat of physical violence related to a custodial interrogation. The case was J-11231-13. There was no video/audio recording since the incident occurred in the field. The investigation into the case is still in progress.
Of the Districts visited (4, 5, 6, and 7), only one District was able to retrieve audio/video recordings of custodial interrogations. Several recordings were reviewed and did not contain any indication of physical violence or threat of physical violence.
b. CD Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164 of the Consent Decree provides that all custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded, and that all recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
NOPD rejects the concept of a “pre-interview” and prohibits any decision not to record any portion of the interrogation based on such categorization. The recording equipment shall not be turned off unless the suspect states that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded. If the suspect requests that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded, the interviewer will record the subject making this request and shall document this request in the case report.
Of the Districts visited (4, 5, 6, and 7), only one District was able to retrieve audio/video recordings of custodial interrogations. One District was able to retrieve video recordings, but without the audio. Another District was unable to retrieve any recordings. The final District explained their system enables them to record only video. Two detectives explained they use
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 45 of 126
Page 45 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
handheld recorders to capture audio. None of the recordings in that District were available for review.
c. CD Paragraph 165
Paragraph 165 of the Consent Decree provides that, if the interrogation is not able to be video and audio recorded because of equipment failure or malfunction, detectives shall record the interrogation by means of a digital or cassette recorder. Any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau. As discussed above, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
d. CD Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166 of the Consent Decree requires that all officers shall maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. None of the Districts could provide a list of all custodial interrogations. One would have to review every case file to determine which contained documentation regarding custodial interrogations.
e. CD Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations. The NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this requirement this quarter.
Districts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all have designated interview rooms. Not all are equipped with functioning audio/video recording technology, however. (District 7 records video and detectives state audio recordings are recorded separately.) Only one District could retrieve video/audio recordings during the audit.
f. CD Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 270 days from the Effective Date, NOPD shall use qualified interpreters for any interrogation of an LEP individual, and Miranda warnings shall be provided to the subject in his or her primary language. Because of the dual role bilingual NOPD employees may have when conducting an interrogation and simultaneously acting as an interpreter, they should only be used as an interpreter during an interrogation if they have identified themselves as officers or employees of the Department, are authorized as NOPD interpreters, and are trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices, as required by the Consent Decree and NOPD’s language assistance policy and plan. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 46 of 126
Page 46 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Very few interrogation recordings were available for review. Of the few reviewed, all were conducted in English. There was no list of interpreters available for investigators. Investigators referenced interpretation devices that are available within the Department, but they cannot be used for interrogations.
No evidence has been provided regarding authorized interpreters, that the interpreters are qualified, or that the interpreters have been trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices.
2. Detective Selection And Interrogation Training
Paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Consent Decree require the NOPD to revise eligibility requirements for detective selection to include experience, writing samples, supervisory recommendations and the use of interviews. These paragraphs further require special training in interrogation procedures, including an ethics component, for newly assigned detectives, and also require all detectives receive annual training in regard to updates and legal changes concerning interrogations. Our specific findings relating to these areas follow.
a. CD Paragraph 169
Paragraph 169 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall post all detective openings throughout the Department and shall revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
There were no detective openings posted in some Districts since August 2013. Some District personnel did provide messages sent department-wide that included the following requirements for consideration: (1) resume and (2) written reports. These also included information that an interview would be conducted. None, however, listed a requirement for a supervisor’s recommendation.
b. CD Paragraph 170
Paragraph 170 of the Consent Decree requires that, within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD develop and deliver at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. This training shall include legal standards; ethics; the mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations; and causes for investigative failures and false confessions. It further requires that NOPD provide regular, and at least annual, In-Service Training to all detectives on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions. While NOPD has until August 2014, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
The last detective criminal investigation training course was conducted in May 2011. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team was unable to monitor a training class for detectives. No
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 47 of 126
Page 47 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
lesson plan was available to review training subjects, but the Training Academy captain did provide a printout of the information regarding the training. The subjects listed included major crime scene investigations, preparing arrest and search warrants, preparing photo lineups, interview and interrogation techniques, death investigations, crime scene forensics, and report writing for detectives.
The requirements of legal standards; ethics; mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations; and causes for investigative failures and false confessions were not listed as included topics as required. There was, however, a reference to being honest in the PowerPoint presentation.
The training materials and class were designed by detectives. The Academy staff, however, should provide input regarding the training that needs to be developed to ensure the training includes all of the subjects required of the Consent Decree.
E. Photographic Lineups (CD 171-175)
Paragraphs 171-175 of the Consent Decree include requirements relating to photographic lineups. Specifically, NOPD must ensure that photographic lineups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agreed to implement the requirements as set forth below.
1. CD Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171 of the Consent Decree provides that no officer who is involved in the investigation shall participate in administering the photographic lineup. The individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
No District visited during January and February 2014 (Districts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7) was able to provide information regarding any of the photo lineups conducted by District personnel. They were not able to provide a list of cases that included any audio/video recording of the lineup.
Without a list of cases that include recordings it is not possible to determine if recordings were made without reviewing every single case file. That is impractical. None of the Districts maintain a file of investigations that include photographic lineups. Without a list of cases that include photographic lineups it is not possible to determine compliance.
2. CD Paragraph 172
Paragraph 172 of the Consent Decree provides, before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 48 of 126
Page 48 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
No cases were available in order to monitor compliance with this section of the Consent Decree. Without a list of cases that include recordings it is not possible to determine if recordings were made without reviewing every single case file. That is impractical. None of the Districts maintain a file of investigations that include photographic lineups. Without a list of cases that include photographic lineups it is not possible to determine compliance.
3. CD Paragraph 173
Paragraph 173 of the Consent Decree provides NOPD shall select “filler” photographs— those that do not depict the suspect—of individuals who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. For the reasons discussed above, the NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
4. CD Paragraph 174
Paragraph 174 of the Consent Decree provides NOPD shall keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the lineup administrator. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. No records of each display were present in any of the Districts on the days of the audits.
5. CD Paragraph 175
Paragraph 175 of the Consent Decree provides NOPD will document other information pertinent to the display procedure, including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. As noted, no records were present concerning individual displays.
6. CD Paragraph 176
Paragraph 176 of the Consent Decree provides, if a suspect selection is made, NOPD agrees to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used. It shall be kept as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part of the permanent case file. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
F. Bias-Free Policing (CD 177-194)
The Consent Decree obligates NOPD to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agreed to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 49 of 126
Page 49 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Obviously, these obligations go to the very core of constitutional policing.
The NOPD’s efforts to comply with Consent Decree’s Bias-Free Policing requirements will be fully assessed – through data analysis, personal observations, and community surveys – in a future Quarterly Report. For the moment, however, we note the NOPD has informed the Monitoring Team it has received funding from the City and currently is in the process of hiring personnel whose main task and objective will be to address many of the requirements of Consent Decree paragraphs 177-194. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with these individuals once they are brought on board.
Additionally, as discussed in greater detail earlier in this Report, the Monitoring Team was able to review all ten racial profiling complaints filed in 2013. Our review showed that all ten complaints were investigated by the PIB and that the investigative approach was consistent in each case. None of the investigations, however, involved a review of the officer’s prior history to determine whether there had been prior complaints of a similar nature.
G. Policing Free Of Gender Bias (CD 195-222)
Section IX of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” This section further requires NOPD “to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the New Orleans Family Justice Center (“NOFJC”), and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response.”
The Monitoring Team has reviewed the New Orleans Office of Inspector General's (“OIG”) performance audit of the NOPD’s Uniform Crime Reporting (“UCR”) process for the period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2013. See NOLA OIG Audit Report A&R13PAU002 (5/14/14). The OIG’s audit focused on the FBI’s 2012 published crime statistics for forcible rape reported in the UCR by the NOPD. The audit identified significant problems with misclassification of offenses for sexual battery and forcible rape offenses. Specifically, according to the OIG, its audit “found that NOPD violated guidelines by misclassifying and not reporting to the UCR Program 41 of the 90 (46%) offenses tested.” See OIG Press Release “New Orleans Police Misclassify Forcible Rape Cases” (5/14/14). The OIG’s audit also “concluded the NOPD violated the Louisiana Public Records Law, and also found NOPD internal policy violations including failure to corroborate signal and/or disposition changes with supporting documentation, failure to complete incident reports prior to end of shifts, lack of timely supervisor review of reports, and failure to remit evidence to Central Evidence & Property.” Id.
The issues identified by the OIG fall within the heart of the Consent Decree. The issues identified also fall squarely within the scope of the issues that are being and will continue to be
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 50 of 126
Page 50 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
reviewed by the Monitoring Team. As described below, the NOPD’s work with the SART and the Blueprint for Safety over the last year has begun the process of increasing awareness within the NOPD regarding sexual violence and domestic violence. These collaborative efforts are a good beginning to understanding victims’ needs; however, it is only a beginning. The accuracy of reports, reviews, and records is critical to the effective and efficient investigation of all citizen complaints. As part of its forthcoming auditing and review projects, as well as the outcome assessments required by the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team will be looking into the issues raised in the OIG report. The Monitoring Team also will be looking into how these issues interact with and/or impact training, supervision, data integrity, record keeping, and policing free of gender bias generally.
As a starting point, over the course of this reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team met frequently with members of the NOPD, the IPM, and various community groups to assess the Department’s compliance with the requirements of this section of the Consent Decree. These meetings have involved NOPD management and rank and file officers, the supervisor of the NOPD Special Victims section, the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, the coordinator of the New Orleans SART (Sexual Assault Response Team) program, the Executive Director of the New Orleans Family Justice Center, the Coordinator of the Blueprint For Safety, and many more. Based upon our work this quarter, we believe NOPD has made progress toward compliance. Nonetheless, NOPD is not in full compliance yet.
As of the conclusion of this reporting quarter, NOPD had not developed policies that incorporate the substance necessary to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. NOPD has stated, and the Monitoring Team has confirmed, that both SART participants, the BluePrint for Safety Coordinator, and NOPD supervisors are working on such policies and accompanying written directives.
In addition to monitoring NOPD’s efforts to develop compliant policies, the Monitoring Team spent a significant amount of time monitoring the Department’s efforts to launch a fully functional SART program. According to the VERA Institute of Justice, a SART “is a multidisciplinary team of health care providers, law enforcement representatives, advocates, and other professionals who coordinate their actions to help ensure that victims of sexual assault are supported and perpetrators held accountable.” The Monitoring Team recognizes the creation of an effective SART program is a collaborative effort among NOPD, the District Attorney, community service providers, and other stakeholders, and that NOPD’s ability to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree in this area is dependent, in part at least, upon the actions of these other groups. (CD 210)
The Monitoring Team’s findings with respect to specific Consent Decree paragraphs follow:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 51 of 126
Page 51 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
1. CD Paragraph 195
Paragraph 195 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop and implement clear policies and procedures governing its response to reports of sexual assault.” The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
The NOPD does not yet have a specific policy on Sexual Assault. NOPD has been working closely with the SART and is developing citywide protocols with the SART group; however, they need to develop a Sexual Assault policy that incorporates all of the requirements in the Consent Decree. Any compliant policy must clearly delineate the respective duties of all responders and the communications division. A compliant policy also must have clear and detailed guidelines for steps at each stage of the NOPD’s response to a reported sexual assault. As of the closing date of this reporting quarter, however, compliant policies and procedures are not yet in existence.
2. CD Paragraphs 196-199
Paragraph 196 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “[p]atrol officers or other first responders [] document their observations and any actions taken, including any statements of victims, witnesses, and reporting persons, in calls for service related to sexual assaults.” Further, paragraphs 197-199 of the Consent Decree require that NOPD develop either protocols or clear and detailed guidelines for initial and follow-up victim interviews, on-scene and follow-up investigations, and forensic examinations of both victims and suspects, as well as evidence preservation and crime scene management in the sexual assault context. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance with these paragraphs.
The SART program is intended to coordinate the efforts of all partners in New Orleans responsible for providing an appropriate response to victims of sexual assault. Even though the SART has been meeting for almost one year, they have not had an “official” roll-out yet. NOPD reports the official roll out is anticipated before the end of April 2014.
While NOPD does incorporate many of the Consent Decree elements in its various investigatory written directives, specific guidelines for these areas must be included in a separate Sexual Assault policy (or written directive) that includes “clear and detailed guidance” at each step of the investigation to meet all Consent Decree requirements. This has not been done yet. Although NOPD does not have a specific policy on sexual assault, many observations and actions are captured in sexual assault reports (as required by paragraph 196). Accordingly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
To demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of these paragraphs, NOPD must develop and implement a specific policy on sexual assault. The Monitoring Team has received very positive feedback regarding the NOPD lieutenant leading the SART effort for the NOPD (Lt. Gilbert), and NOPD is aware of the deficiencies in this area and is working to develop a
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 52 of 126
Page 52 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Sexual Assault policy that will meet the Consent Decree requirements. Therefore, the Monitoring Team believes the NOPD is progressing toward compliance.
3. CD Paragraph 200
Paragraph 200 of the Consent Decree requires that, “through its on-going training, NOPD [will] keep officers apprised, and shall inform victims, of available services, referrals, or other assistance.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
NOPD has demonstrated to the Monitoring Team that some training in this area has been done through roll-calls and electronic means. NOPD has not demonstrated, however, that all officers are kept apprised of the resources available. Furthermore, NOPD has not demonstrated that victims are informed of the resources available to them. When developed and implemented, NOPD’s policy on sexual assault should include provisions addressing both the ongoing training of officers and dissemination of information to victims of sexual assault concerning the assistance services available. To demonstrate full compliance, NOPD must demonstrate that a policy on sexual assault that includes these requirements has been implemented and that both officers are being trained and that victims are being notified.
4. CD Paragraph 201
Paragraph 201 of the Consent Decree requires that Special Victims Supervisors provide direct supervision of their subordinates. Paragraph 201 further identifies how supervisors are to respond to a scene, build relationships with advocates and programs, enhance training, review reports, demonstrate a detailed understanding of victims’ rights, and incorporate victim interactions and services into performance evaluations. NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree.
NOPD has issued a memorandum that acknowledges the requirements of paragraph 201 and directs officers to take the necessary steps to comply. While this is a good first step toward compliance, the Monitoring Team advised NOPD that, to demonstrate full compliance, these instructions must be incorporated into a written policy and procedure in order to ensure these requirements continue to be addressed and that officers are held accountable for these requirements. As of the close of this monitoring quarter, NOPD was unable to demonstrate this written guidance has been developed and implemented.
5. CD Paragraph 202
Paragraph 202 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “track all [Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”)] hit outcomes with the CODIS Hit Outcome Program software provided by [the] National Institute of Justice.” NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement of the Consent Decree. Although NOPD reported that they are tracking CODIS hit outcomes, as of the end of the reporting quarter they had not provided the required documentation to demonstrate their use of the correct software. In the upcoming
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 53 of 126
Page 53 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
quarter, the Monitoring Team will meet with NOPD to observe the software used and to discuss the CODIS hit outcomes.
6. CD Paragraphs 203-205
Paragraphs 203, 204, and 205 of the Consent Decree include additional training requirements relating to sexual assault.
x Paragraph 203 requires that NOPD “incorporate [International Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”)] recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices into its training.”
x Paragraph 204 requires that NOPD “provide initial training for sex crimes detectives of no fewer than 32 hours.”
x Paragraph 205 requires that NOPD “provide detailed initial and recruit training on responding to sexual assault for patrol officers and other first responders of no fewer than four hours, and ongoing annual in-service training.”
x Paragraph 205 also requires that NOPD “incorporate fact-based scenarios involving stranger and non-stranger sexual assault into recruit and in-service training on topics such as general investigation, crime scene preservation, and report writing.”
Although NOPD is making progress in each of these areas, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree for these paragraphs.
NOPD has not yet incorporated the IACP recommendations into its training as required by paragraph 203, although NOPD has acknowledged this requirement and is working to improve the training in this area. NOPD also reports that annual In-Service Training for sex crimes detectives will far exceed the Consent Decree requirement of no fewer than 32 hours. While NOPD has agreed to collect and provide to the Monitoring Team the documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Consent Decree requirements, as of the conclusion of this reporting quarter, NOPD had yet to provide this proof.
According to NOPD, Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence each will have two hours of classroom instruction in 2014 and two hours of on-line instruction. NOPD was working on rolling out an enhanced lesson plan for domestic violence training during the second quarter. Our review of the NOPD’s training materials, however, revealed that the required fact-based scenario training has not been included in the 2014 training. While NOPD acknowledged this deficiency during the previous quarter and reported it will add a fact-based scenario element and will modify the 2014 lesson plans in order to come into compliance with paragraph 205, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance. In the coming quarter, the Monitoring Team will meet with staff to review lesson plans and conduct follow-up with monitoring of the required hours for training with documentation. The Monitoring team will monitor the fact-based training classes when they are implemented.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 54 of 126
Page 54 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. CD Paragraphs 206-208
Paragraphs 206, 207, and 208 include several requirements relating to the coding, classification, and tracking of sexual assaults, specifically:
x Paragraph 206 prohibits patrol officers and detectives from coding reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category without the express written approval of the Investigative Services Bureau Special Victim Section Commander and the Investigative Services Bureau Criminal Investigations Division Commander.
x Paragraph 207 requires that NOPD “train supervisors and investigators in the Sex Crimes unit in the proper definitions and application of ‘unfounded,’ ‘false,’ and ‘baseless’ classifications in the context of sexual assault.”
x Paragraph 207 requires that the “immediate supervisor in the Sex Crimes Unit and the Special Victims Section Commander [] closely review and approve in writing any decision to classify a report as ‘unfounded.’
x Paragraph 207 requires that NOPD “track each of these conclusions separately in NOPD’s [Criminal Case Management System (“CCMS”)] and publicly report them on at least a semi-annual basis.”
x Paragraph 208 requires that NOPD “separately track all reports of felony sexual assault, including drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual assaults involving persons with disabilities rendering them unable to consent, sodomy, and male victims of sexual assault,” and that this data also be tracked in NOPD’s CCMS.
x Paragraph 208 requires that NOPD “make a reasonable effort to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the DA to track information related to the outcomes of domestic violence cases including whether the case was ultimately dismissed, resulted in a plea agreement, or tried, and the final outcome of the trial.”
NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
NOPD has issued a memorandum that acknowledges the requirements of paragraph 206 and directs officers to take the necessary steps to comply. Additionally, NOPD reported that supervisors and investigators have been trained in the definitions as required by paragraph 207. NOPD has not, however, demonstrated that the requirements of paragraph 206 have been incorporated into a written directive, or that it is tracking sexual assaults through CCMS. Furthermore, the Monitoring Team has learned that the DA’s office is unlikely to enter into an MOU with NOPD, and therefore NOPD must develop a separate mechanism to monitor and track why certain cases are not accepted for prosecution.
8. CD Paragraph 209
Paragraph 209 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “track in its Justice Trax Laboratory Information Management System the evidence collected and whether it was
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 55 of 126
Page 55 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
submitted to a crime lab for testing.” Additionally, paragraph 209 requires that, “[w]here evidence is not submitted, NOPD [will] record in this System the justification for this decision.” The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance
NOPD uses the “Iresults” management system, developed by Justice Trax, to track the processing of sexual assault evidence. The Monitoring Team has not yet had the opportunity to assess whether the manner in which NOPD uses the Iresults systems meets the requirements of the Consent Decree, but plans to do so in the next reporting quarter.
9. CD Paragraph 210
Paragraph 210 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “work with the DA, community service providers, and other stakeholders to develop and implement a SART and collaborative SART agreement within 180 days of the Effective Date” of the Consent Decree. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Many elements of the SART Program are currently underway, and the members meet monthly. Although the NOPD has been an active participant in these SART meetings and Lt. Gilbert of the NOPD Special Victims Unit is widely accepted and supported by SART members as a contributing SART member, the NOPD did not draft a SART agreement within the 180 days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Progress is being made toward an agreement, but NOPD has yet to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. As noted above, however, the Monitoring Team recognizes the creation of an effective SART program is a collaborative effort among NOPD, the District Attorney, community service providers, and other stakeholders, and that NOPD’s ability to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree in this area is dependent, in part at least, upon the actions of these other groups. (CD 210)
10. CD Paragraph 211
Paragraph 211 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop a mechanism to select and permit a committee of representatives from the community” to review sexual assault investigations and “to develop a protocol to ensure that feedback and recommendations from this committee are incorporated into policies, general training, remedial training for specific officers or detectives, and the decision to re-examine and re-open investigations, if warranted.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
NOPD has not yet begun to develop a mechanism to select and permit a committee of representatives from the community to review cases on a semi-annual basis. The deadline for the development of this mechanism, however, has not yet passed (within 365 days of the Effective Date). NOPD has committed to review a sampling of sexual assault investigations with SART, but has not yet developed the required protocols for a review to be performed.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 56 of 126
Page 56 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
11. CD Paragraphs 212-213
Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the Consent Decree require that NOPD delineate roles and responsibilities in its domestic violence policies and procedures, provide detailed guidelines for each stage of NOPD’s response to a report of domestic violence, and “prioritize victim safety and protection at each stage of its response to a report of domestic violence” by providing “clear guidelines for on-scene and follow-up investigation.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
The Monitoring Team and NOPD met and reviewed the requirements of paragraphs 212 and 213 during the first quarter, and during the second quarter NOPD reported that they are still working to implement these requirements. Specifically, NOPD is making progress in delineating the respective duties of the various “responders” and call-takers to domestic violence incidents/calls for service in their policies and procedures. Additionally, the Monitoring Team observed that, although NOPD is following the Blueprint for Safety Protocol, they are still in the process of ensuring that these principles are incorporated thoroughly into the Department’s practices, including revising policies and procedures.
12. CD Paragraph 214
Paragraph 214 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to discourage dual arrests of offenders and victims” by providing “guidance on when dual arrests are permissible and require[ing] supervisory approval to effectuate a dual arrest,” revising policies to require custodial arrest, where appropriate, and by training officers “on how to identify the primary aggressor.” NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
NOPD has revised Policy 320 and PR320 to include language that discourages dual arrests for domestic violence and guidance on when dual arrests are permissible, including when a supervisor must give approvals. Furthermore, domestic violence training was recently enhanced (for the March 2014 in-service class), and includes education on handling calls for protection orders, and information on probable cause for arrests for domestic violence, and methods for identifying the primary aggressor. The Monitoring Team has spoken with the District Attorney’s Office, which has advised us they are not seeing over-use of “dual arrests” by the NOPD in domestic violence cases. The Monitoring Team will conduct its own compliance assessments in futures quarters.
13. CD Paragraphs 215-216
Paragraph 215 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to continue to participate in the operation, development, and sustainability of the NOFJC; work in co-location with other civil and criminal agencies and community-based organizations; and support a centralized, multiagency Family Justice Center model in the handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases in New Orleans.” Paragraph 216 requires NOPD “to collaborate with and refer all victims to the NOFJC.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 57 of 126
Page 57 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
A member of the Monitoring Team met with Mary Claire Landry, Executive Director of the NOFJC, several times during the second quarter. Ms. Landry stated her belief that the NOPD continues to participate in the operation, development, and sustainability of the NOFJC, and noted that NOPD has several investigators assigned to offices in the NOFJC building. Ms. Landry also stated her desire to “house” detectives from the Sexual Assault Unit. The Monitoring Team also observed NOPD’s work with other community organizations via SART and the Blueprint for Safety efforts. The Monitoring Team also observed an improvement in the number of NOPD referrals to the NOFJC, but notes that NOPD should be documenting all referrals in police reports.
14. CD Paragraph 217
Paragraph 217 of the Consent Decree includes a number of requirements aimed at ensuring that NOPD continues “close collaboration with the DA and community providers to ensure that policies and protocols remain victim-centered and effective.” To facilitate collaboration, the Consent Decree requires at least quarterly meetings with the NOFJC, as well as the designation of a representative to review and coordinate domestic violence policies. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with these Consent Decree requirements.
NOPD unofficially has designated a sergeant as its representative; however, to meet the requirements of paragraph 217 of the Consent Decree, the Superintendent must officially designate a Commander. The current representative, however, is coordinating with the Blueprint for Safety Coordinator for internal consistency in NOPD’s policies and meets daily with the DA assigned to the DVU in the NOFJC. The representative also has identified recent training needs and during the second quarter was working on improving the domestic violence training. The Monitoring Team will review this training during the upcoming quarter.
15. CD Paragraph 218
Paragraph 218 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to assign sufficient staff to the DVU at the NOFJC to permit detectives to review, on a weekly basis, District-level reports on incidents of domestic violence, for the purpose of identifying training needs and tracking the Districts’ response to domestic violence.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with these Consent Decree requirements.
The Monitoring Team spoke with a representative from the DA, DVU, and NOFJC, and all were of the opinion that NOPD has not assigned sufficient staff to the DVU at the NOFJC. The NOPD representative is assigned to review all cases that come in on a daily basis and he must “prioritize” them for assignment based on their severity. As a result, there is a delay in responding to follow-up cases and some cases do not receive follow-up. Furthermore, there are only three DVU Detectives assigned under the NOPD representative (as compared to six prior to Hurricane Katrina), and they all stated to the Monitoring Team they are over-worked and require additional staff. To confirm these staffing issues, the Monitoring Team may conduct a study of calls for service as compared to assignments.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 58 of 126
Page 58 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
16. CD Paragraph 219
Paragraph 219 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “offer training on domestic violence that incorporates IACP recommendations for VAW Law Enforcement Best Practices.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with these Consent Decree requirements.
The NOPD representative at NOFJC is responsible for updating domestic violence training and incorporating best practices and VAW and IACP recommendations. During the second quarter, the representative reported that work was being done to update to this training, but as of the end of the reporting quarter this documentation had not been provided. In the upcoming quarter, the Monitoring Team has meetings scheduled with NOPD to determine progress in this area.
17. CD Paragraph 220
Paragraph 220 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to provide at least four hours of initial and recruit training on domestic violence for all officers” and “to incorporate fact-based scenarios involving domestic violence into recruit and in-service training.” The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
The NOPD is providing two hours of In-Service Training at the Academy for sexual assault and domestic violence. The additional two hours will be included in online training. Our review of the NOPD’s training materials, however, revealed the required fact-based scenario training has not been included in the 2014 training. While NOPD reports it will add a fact-based scenario element and will modify the 2014 lesson plans in order to come into compliance with paragraph 220, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance. In the coming quarter, the Monitoring Team will meet with staff to review lesson plans and conduct follow-up with monitoring of the required hours for training with documentation. The Monitoring Team will monitor the fact-based training classes when they are implemented.
18. CD Paragraph 221
Paragraph 221 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “provide domestic violence detectives with initial training of no fewer than 32 hours.” The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
During the second quarter, NOPD reported that Domestic Violence detectives will receive greater than 32 hours of domestic violence training this year. As of the end of the reporting quarter, however, NOPD had not provided documentation proving compliance. In the upcoming quarter, the Monitoring Team will attempt to obtain the documentation demonstrating compliance with this paragraph.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 59 of 126
Page 59 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
19. CD Paragraph 222
Paragraph 222 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to track dispositions of domestic violence investigations, to track dual arrests and domestic violence arrests by gender, to make a reasonable effort to enter into an MOU with appropriate agencies to assist in this tracking, and to report the data publicly on an annual basis. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
After speaking with the DA’s Office, the Monitoring Team determined an MOU was unlikely to be signed, but that data concerning refusals to proceed with domestic violence cases are sent to each District. The NOPD is tracking the required data, including dual arrests and domestic violence arrests by gender, and these statistics are included in the NOPD representative’s monthly reports. Additionally, NOPD is working with Blueprint for Safety Coordinator to develop the required annual report (although a report has not been issued yet).
H. Recruitment (CD 234-244)
Section XI of the Consent Decree provides that the NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, will develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. The Consent Decree further provides NOPD and the City, again working with the Civil Service, will ensure that NOPD’s recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible. The Monitoring Team reviewed NOPD’s compliance with its Recruitment requirements this quarter.
Over the course of this reporting period, the Monitoring Team met with NOPD management and supervisors in the NOPD Recruiting and Applicant Investigation Division to discuss the NOPD hiring process. NOPD confirms (and we will verify in the coming quarter) that funding is in place to implement a variety of recruiting initiatives, including the addition of one sworn officer and one civilian Spanish-speaking officer to the recruiting unit. Among other things, the Monitoring Team reviewed NOPD’s “Recruitment Goals and Plan” document, which, if followed, will help the NOPD meet its Consent Decree obligations. For example, one NOPD recruiting goal is to increase the number of Hispanic and Vietnamese employees to achieve parity with the community. This goal, like the other goals, is accompanied by sensible objectives and strategy statements. The Monitoring Team also reviewed a PowerPoint presentation NOPD delivered to the City Council on September 25, 2013 titled “NOPD Recruitment & Applicant Investigation: 2013 Recruitment Effort.” The presentation reflected sensible efforts if implemented properly.
The Monitoring Team also confirmed NOPD has entered into a professional services agreement with the Institute for Public Safety Personnel (“IPSP”) to assist with its recruiting efforts, including the development of content, rules and training for the NOPD applicant interview panels. The IPSP is a consulting firm that provides public safety departments with personnel testing and evaluation services.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 60 of 126
Page 60 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In sum, NOPD has sensible and impressive aspirations with respect to enhancing its recruiting capabilities. Furthermore, NOPD has made some progress toward achieving those aspirations already. The effectiveness of its efforts, of course, is best measured by the results, which the Monitoring Team will be assessing carefully in the coming quarters. In the meantime, the following paragraphs reflect our findings with respect to several specific Consent Decree requirements.
1. CD Paragraph 234
Paragraph 234 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD, working with Civil Service, develop a written, strategic Recruitment Plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants. The strategic Recruitment Plan must clearly identify the duties and goals of NOPD’s Recruitment Unit. The Recruitment Plan must include specific strategies for attracting applicants with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese (because these languages are spoken by a significant segment of the New Orleans Community), and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.
While the Recruitment Plan required by Paragraph 234 of the Consent Decree is complete and has been reviewed by the Monitoring Team, neither the NOPD Recruitment Plan nor the Civil Service applicant documentation articulate that applicants will be screened for strategic thinking, problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese, or the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community. NOPD, thus, was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. That being said, the Monitoring Team does note that NOPD is creating a new website; hosting more job fairs; conducting more “meet and greets” at community functions, churches, and roll-calls; advertising; and engaging in other recruiting activities, all of which, if implemented properly, should help the NOPD come into compliance with various elements of the Consent Decree.
2. CD Paragraph 238
Paragraph 238 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD will develop and implement a system for psychological screening and assessment of all NOPD recruit candidates, and will set criteria to ensure that only individuals suitable for policing are accepted into NOPD training academy.
NOPD appears to be in compliance with the Consent Decree requirements regarding psychological assessments. All recruit applicants must pass psychological screening prior to being cleared for hire. The psychological screenings are handled by the Civil Service Department. A licensed psychologist administers, scores, and analyzes the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI”), California Psychological Inventory (“CPI”), and Psychological History Questionnaire (“PsyQ”). The psychologist also reviews the candidate's NOPD background information, educational history, and work history and conducts a clinical interview with each candidate for a minimum of one hour. A determination then is made
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 61 of 126
Page 61 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
by the psychologist as to each candidate’s psychological suitability for law enforcement work. A confidential report is furnished to Civil Service by the psychologist. Compliance with this Consent Decree paragraph was confirmed by reviewing redacted psychological assessment reports, NOPD policies, and other documents provided by the psychologist.
3. CD Paragraph 241
Paragraph 241 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, must establish standardized qualifications and guidance for who may serve on a recruit applicant interview panel. Eligibility for serving on a recruit applicant interview panel shall include a review of the officer's internal disciplinary file and personnel file.
After discussing this Consent Decree requirement with various members of the NOPD, as of the end of the reporting quarter NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. In part, this failure appears to be due, in part at least, to the inability of the NOPD and the Civil Service Commission to work together to meet the requirements of Paragraph 241.
4. CD Paragraph 243
Paragraph 243 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD and the City shall work with Civil Service to establish a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists. The scoring system shall be used to assess recruit applicants immediately following the applicant's interview. These assessment forms shall be maintained by the Recruitment Unit.
The NOPD’s effort with respect to Paragraph 243 of the Consent Decree is a work in process. The Department hired the Institute for Public Safety Personnel, Inc. to help it establish a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists. The Company has created a special scoring system for NOPD. NOPD is in the process of selecting the panel. Once selected, the panel will be trained by the Company on process and scoring system. NOPD has made progress toward compliance.
5. CD Paragraph 235
Paragraph 235 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop a protocol that includes specific criteria for assigning officers to the Recruitment Unit, including officers’ work history, disciplinary history, length of employment at NOPD, and demonstrated commitment to community-oriented policing. NOPD reportedly has a knowledge, skill, and ability (“KSA”) system in place that has been applied to the last few transfers into the unit. However, those KSAs are not institutionalized in Policy or Unit Standard Operating Procedures, thus cannot be verified. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 62 of 126
Page 62 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
6. CD Paragraph 236
Paragraph 236 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to staff the Recruitment Unit sufficiently to permit the Unit to fulfill its responsibilities. This item cannot be objectively determined until the specific performance criteria required by paragraph 237 and outcomes and activities as detailed in paragraph 244, discussed below, are met.
7. CD Paragraph 237
Paragraph 237 of the Consent Decree requires Recruitment staff be trained on recruiting a qualified and diverse workforce, including training on employment law. NOPD also must establish specific performance criteria to evaluate recruitment staff effectiveness in hiring increasing numbers of high quality recruits. While the Recruitment Plan has established goals and objectives, specific criteria to measure staff effectiveness are not indicated. Accordingly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
8. CD Paragraph 239
Paragraph 239 of the Consent Decree requires the Recruitment Unit to conduct affirmative outreach to a broad group of community members (e.g., college and university initiatives, military outreach, the PCAB, and community meetings in each District), and shall create and foster relationships with those organizations to enhance recruitment efforts. As of our review, community meetings had not been held in Districts 1 and 7. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team notes, however, NOPD is nearing compliance on this item.
9. CD Paragraph 240
Paragraph 240 of the Consent Decree requires the NOPD and the City, working with Civil Service, to ensure the dates and times of the officer recruit application period and testing dates are advertised “widely.” The dates and times are published on eight web boards and online at NOLA.gov but they do not appear to be “advertised widely,” as required. Advertisements in additional media or publications relating to minority issues would demonstrate compliance with this requirement. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team notes, however, NOPD is nearing compliance on this item.
10. CD Paragraph 242
Paragraph 242 of the Consent Decree is dependent upon implementation of paragraphs 241 and 243. Accordingly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 63 of 126
Page 63 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
11. CD Paragraph 244
Paragraph 244 of the Consent Decree requires the Recruitment Unit to report annually its recruiting activities and outcomes, including the number of applicants, interviewees, and selectees, and the extent to which the Recruitment Unit has been able to recruit applicants with needed skills, such as problem-solving abilities or fluency in Spanish or Vietnamese, and a discussion of any challenges to recruiting highly qualified applicants. NOPD advised they completed this requirement in 2012 but are preparing end of year 2013 data to provide the next annual report. They did provide a briefing to the City Council on September 25, 2013 that included much of this information. NOPD must report this data annually, however, to meet the requirements of paragraph 244.
At the time of this report, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
I. Academy And In-Service Training (CD 245-288)
This section of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure all police officers receive adequate training in order to understand the law as well as departmental policy. It also requires all NOPD training received by police officers reflect the Department’s expectations that officers respect the rights of all individuals they encounter. The Consent Decree further requires that NOPD officers employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety.
1. CD Paragraph 245
Paragraph 245 of the Consent Decree provides that the NOPD Training Division shall be the central coordination point for all training, including the recruit training Academy; field training; all In-Service Training, including firearms and other use of force training; roll-call training; supervisory training; tactical and task force training; and all elective training. NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this requirement.
The Training Academy is the central coordination point for most training including recruit training, field training, in-service training, and supervisory training. Some training, however, was not coordinated with the Training Academy such as detective training and tactical training.
Roll-call training is supposed to be conducted at each duty location. The Monitoring Team was unable to assess whether training is conducted since there is no record of the training at the Academy. The roll-call training is also supposed to include 24 hours of training for supervisors to meet the requirement of 64 hours of training, but there is no documentation that any supervisors or officers received the training.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 64 of 126
Page 64 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Training Academy is designated as the central coordination point for firearms training but documented firearms training was not available at the Training Academy for the Monitoring Team’s review. Early Warning System training records were similarly unavailable at the Training Academy. The lesson plans are believed to be housed at PIB.
The detective training conducted in 2011 (last known training) was conducted by personnel of the NOPD detective branch and without input by the Training Academy. The Training Academy was unable to produce a copy of the lesson plan when requested.
The Monitoring Team also determined that some NOPD managers are approving training without knowledge by Academy staff. The Academy staff learns of such training after they receive a certificate for training attended.
Further, tactical training lesson plans are not housed at the Training Academy. If they do exist, they appear to be housed at the SOD.
2. CD Paragraph 246
Paragraph 246 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD’s Training Division Commander shall be responsible for overseeing all NOPD training, including recruit Academy; field training; all in-service training; and for ensuring that training is delivered consistent with NOPD’s written training plan. NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this requirement.
The Training Academy is responsible for overseeing some of the NOPD training including recruit training, field training, and some in-service training (not roll-call training). NOPD’s training plan, however, is not yet developed.
3. CD Paragraph 247
Paragraph 247 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to create a full-time Department-wide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, and designate a single training coordinator in each District and central organizational unit to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison shall establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this requirement.
The Department has designated a Department-wide Training Liaison. This Training Liaison has identified a single training coordinator in each District to coordinate and document training. No roll-call training, however, has been documented.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 65 of 126
Page 65 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. CD Paragraph 248
Paragraph 248 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 120 days of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to establish a Training Advisory Committee that shall include staff from the NOPD Training Division, NOPD field personnel, high-level NOPD command staff (Deputy Superintendent or above), a community representative from the Police-Community Advisory Board, two representatives from area colleges and universities, an outside police professional with expertise in model training practices, and a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney’s Office, the USAO, and the City Attorney’s Office.
The Advisory Committee was established in March 2012, and NOPD reports the Committee meets once a month. The Monitoring Team has attended and monitored select meetings of the Committee and confirmed, at least preliminarily, the meetings are functioning as intended. The Monitoring Team also reviewed the list of Training Advisory Committee members and confirmed it met the requirements of the Consent Decree, although we note the Commander of the Training Academy is not a member of the Advisory Committee, which we believe somewhat limits the effectiveness of the Committee. NOPD is in compliance with this Consent Decree requirement at this time. The Monitoring Team will be attending future meetings of the Advisory Committee to ensure it is functioning as contemplated in the Consent Decree.
5. CD Paragraph 249
Paragraph 249 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD’s Training Advisory Committee shall develop a written training plan for NOPD’s recruit Academy, field, and inservice training, to ensure that recruits, officers, and civilian personnel are trained to effectively and lawfully carry out their duties in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plan shall comport with best practices and the requirements of the Consent Decree. While NOPD had until May 6, 2014, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
6. CD Paragraph 250
Paragraph 250 of the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to submit the training plan to the Monitoring Team and DOJ. The Monitoring Team shall review the training plan and provide the Parties with written comments. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, as NOPD has not yet developed the required training plan.
7. CD Paragraph 251
Paragraph 251 of the Consent Decree provides that the Training Advisory Committee shall annually review and update NOPD’s training plan. To inform this update, the Training Advisory Committee shall conduct a needs assessment, taking into consideration: trends in misconduct complaints; problematic Use of Force events; analysis of officer safety issues; input from members at all levels of NOPD; input from members of the community, including
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 66 of 126
Page 66 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
community concerns; court decisions; research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; individual District needs; and any changes to Louisiana or federal law, or to NOPD policy. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, as NOPD has not yet developed the required training plan.
8. CD Paragraph 258
Paragraph 258 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to implement the Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Protocols for all staff assigned to the training division and all adjunct instructors within NOPD. The paragraph goes on to provide minimum qualification requirements for Academy staff. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. A Training Academy sergeant was unable to provide any documentation regarding the above criteria. He advised that all records were lost in Hurricane Katrina in 2006.
9. CD Paragraph 259
Paragraph 259 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall actively seek out and retain qualified instructors, including instructors from outside NOPD, with expertise in areas such as law and investigations, as necessary, to supplement the skills of in-house training staff and adjunct instructors. Additionally, the Consent Decree requires NOPD to incorporate experts and guest speakers such as judges; prosecutors, including representatives of the USAO; crime victims; and community members, to participate in courses at the Training Academy. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
10. CD Paragraph 260
Paragraph 260 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure all new and current Training Division staff and NOPD adjunct instructors receive forty hours of initial training, including training on effective teaching, adult-learning techniques, curriculum development, and annual in-service training. The Consent Decree further requires NOPD to ensure instructors use only curricula and lesson plans approved by the Training Division. NOPD also must require that instructors use a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problemsolving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. A training academy sergeant was unable to provide any documentation regarding the above criteria.
11. CD Paragraph 261
Paragraph 261 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD evaluate the performance of Training Division staff and all adjunct or other training instructors and shall remove staff and instructors who do not meet NOPD criteria. NOPD must document each evaluation using an established set of criteria to be developed pursuant to this Agreement. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. While evaluations are available for NOPD personnel at the Academy, the performance evaluations do not adequately
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 67 of 126
Page 67 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
evaluate performance. The evaluation forms consists of only two items for evaluation. The NOPD needs to establish criteria to adequately evaluate performance.
12. CD Paragraph 264
Paragraph 264 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement a recruit training program that comports with NOPD’s written training plan described above, and that reflects the requirements of the Consent Decree. While NOPD has until August 9, 2014, NOPD is not yet in compliance with this Consent Decree Requirement. A written training plan does not yet exist.
13. CD Paragraph 265
Paragraph 265 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall modify the amount and content of recruit Academy training to comport with its written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD further must provide recruits with at least 880 hours of Academy instruction. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement because a written training plan does not yet exist.
14. CD Paragraph 266
Paragraph 266 of the Consent Decree provides that, in addition to the training requirements reflected in the substantive provisions of this Agreement, NOPD must ensure sufficient recruit Academy instructional hours in certain enumerated areas. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement because a written training plan does not yet exist. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate any training records to demonstrate a recruit class was provided with the training required in paragraph 266. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened.
15. CD Paragraph 267
Paragraph 267 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall structure the recruit training Academy so that instruction is delivered in logical progression to ensure that each skill or unit builds on previous skills or units. NOPD also must schedule training modules so that recruits become proficient in fundamental tasks before progressing to more advanced skills and activities. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement because a written training plan does not yet exist. No training records exist to demonstrate a recruit class was provided with the progression of training required in paragraph 267. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 68 of 126
Page 68 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
16. CD Paragraph 268
Paragraph 268 of the Consent Decree provides that, in addition to inclusion in separate training modules, NOPD must incorporate training on constitutional and statutory law; ethical decision making; community policing; de-escalation of force; and bias-free policing throughout the course of the recruit Academy training. NOPD further must reinforce legal concepts in the context of instruction on interviewing and interrogation, crime scene processing, and report writing. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement because a written training plan does not yet exist. No training records exist to demonstrate a recruit class was provided with the subjects required in paragraph 268. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened.
17. CD Paragraph 269
Paragraph 269 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to use problem-based learning and scenario-based exercises throughout the course of the recruit Academy. NOPD agrees to ensure that scenario-based exercises have specific training objectives, and to evaluate achievement in multiple areas, such as constitutional and statutory law, officer safety, NOPD procedures, and report writing. NOPD also must require recruits to produce actual reports and statements at the end of scenario-based exercises. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement because a written training plan does not yet exist. No training records exist to demonstrate a recruit class was provided with the scenario-based exercises as required in Paragraph 269. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened.
18. CD Paragraph 270
Paragraph 270 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to intersperse skills training in areas such as driving, firearms, and defensive tactics throughout the course of the recruit Academy training, to allow recruits to develop and reinforce these skills over time. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement since a written training plan does not yet exist. No training records exist to demonstrate a recruit class was provided with the skills training required in paragraph 270. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened.
19. CD Paragraph 271
Paragraph 271 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD not add recruit candidates after the first week of the recruit training Academy. As of January 7, 2014, no recruit class was in training at the Academy. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened. The Monitoring Team will assess NOPD’s compliance with this Consent Decree requirement in the next quarter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 69 of 126
Page 69 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
20. CD Paragraph 272
Paragraph 272 of the Consent Decree provides that, to ensure continuity of training, NOPD shall minimize interruptions to recruit Academy training for the purpose of staffing special events and other functions. The Consent Decree notes this does not preclude the use of recruits for Mardi Gras-related service functions or in case of emergencies. The Monitoring Team will evaluate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree when the next recruit training class is convened. The Monitoring Team will assess NOPD compliance in the next quarter.
21. CD Paragraph 275
Paragraph 275 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD must develop and implement a field-training program for recruit academy graduates that comports with NOPD’s written training plan and this Agreement. NOPD’s field training program shall follow Academy training and shall be at least sixteen weeks. While NOPD has until August 9, 2014, NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
22. CD Paragraph 276
Paragraph 276 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD’s policies and procedures on field training shall delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. Only highly qualified officers shall serve as FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. NOPD must establish formal eligibility criteria for FTOs and Field Training Sergeants based on their performance evaluations, previous superior performance as police officers, and complaint and disciplinary histories. FTO appointments will be subject to review for reappointment at the Training Division Commander’s discretion. District commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with the Training Academy staff, to remove a field-training officer from the FTO program. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. A Training Academy sergeant reports that more than one training officer was removed as a field training officer, but no names or dates of removal were provided.
23. CD Paragraph 277
Paragraph 277 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall ensure all current and new FTOs and Field Training sergeants receive at least 40 hours of initial supervisory-level training and annual in-service training in the following areas: management and supervision; community-oriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication. FTOs and Field Training sergeants shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, their proficiency in managing recruits and subordinates, practicing and teaching community-oriented policing, and solving problems effectively. NOPD shall maintain current documentation of FTOs’ evaluations and training. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The field training sergeant responsible for these records was on extended leave due to an injury and no other personnel were able to provide this information to the Monitoring Team.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 70 of 126
Page 70 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
24. CD Paragraph 278
Paragraph 278 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD ensure recruits in the fieldtraining program are trained in a variety of geographic areas within New Orleans; in a variety of shifts; and with several FTOs. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
The field training sergeant responsible for these records was on extended leave due to an injury. No other personnel were able to provide this information to the Monitoring Team. The Captain responsible for training, however, explained to the Monitoring Team that recruits are sent to 16 weeks of field training and are shifted to three different Districts during those 16 weeks, with the last four weeks at the same duty location as their first four weeks of field training. We will assess whether this happens in practice in a future Quarterly Report.
25. CD Paragraph 279
Paragraph 279 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD review and evaluate annually the performance of FTOs and Field Training Sergeants, with re-certification dependent on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Training Division staff. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. Evaluations are available for NOPD personnel at the Academy. However, the performance evaluations do not adequately evaluate performance. The evaluation consists of only two items for evaluation. The NOPD needs to establish criteria to adequately evaluate performance.
26. CD Paragraph 280
Paragraph 280 of the Consent Decree provides NOPD shall create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy, and suggestions for changes to Academy training based upon their experience in the FTO program. The Consent Decree further provides that NOPD shall consider feedback and to document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action. While NOPD has until August 9, 2014, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. There is no documentation available regarding a mechanism for recruit feedback.
27. CD Paragraph 281
Paragraph 281 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD must review and revise its FTO participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates. While NOPD has until August 9, 2014, NOPD was not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. There is no documentation available regarding a review and revision of the FTO participation policy.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 71 of 126
Page 71 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
28. CD Paragraph 282
Paragraph 282 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD’s Training Advisory Committee shall conduct a study of the feasibility of implementing a Police Training Officer model that would incorporate community- and problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods of teaching. If NOPD and the City find it feasible, NOPD and the City must implement this program. While NOPD has until August 9, 2014, NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. There is no documentation available regarding the requirements of Paragraph 282.
29. CD Paragraph 283
Paragraph 283 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall develop and implement a mandatory annual In-Service Training program that comports with NOPD’s written training plan and the requirements of this Agreement. NOPD agrees to provide at least sixty-four hours of InService Training to each officer pursuant to this program within 365 Days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and annually thereafter. In-Service Training will be comprised of a forty-hour core curriculum and twenty-four hours of additional elective training. Specialized training for officers in certain units or assignments (such as the initial forty hour training for specialized CIT officers) shall be considered additional elective training. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
A training plan is not yet developed. Documentation is not available to determine compliance. The Training Academy does list a forty-hour training course for officers and lists twenty-four hours of roll-call training for the other elective training. There is no record, however, of any officer attending roll-call training available.
30. CD Paragraph 284
Paragraph 284 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall create core-training requirements for the following positions: officers; command staff; lieutenants and sergeants; detectives; narcotics investigators; and specialized units. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Academy is still developing the core training.
31. CD Paragraph 285
Paragraph 285 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive roll-call training program. Roll-call training shall be provided at the beginning of each shift. Roll-call training shall include special topics selected by the Training Division Commander or District Commanders that address officer safety, readiness, community concerns, or departmental procedural matters. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 72 of 126
Page 72 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The Academy is using the Lexipol roll-call training. There is no documentation, however, that officers are attending roll-call training. The Training Academy does send a list to duty locations advising supervisors of officers that missed the roll-call training. Subsequent lists include the same officers who missed prior training. In addition, the only locations receiving rollcall training are the Districts.
J. Officer Assistance And Support (CD 289-294)
Section XIII of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.” This section of the Consent Decree includes several specific requirements, including:
x Paragraph 289 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to further develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that comports with best practices and current professional standards”
x Paragraph 290 of the Consent Decree requires that, within 180 days of the Effective Date, NOPD “develops a department-wide mental and physical health and wellness program” that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree
x Paragraph 291 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to compile and distribute a list of internally and externally available mental health services to all officers and employees”
x Paragraph 292 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to train management and supervisory personnel in officer support services protocols to ensure wide availability and use of officer support services” and “to incorporate discussion of currently available officer support services”
x Paragraph 293 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to involve mental health professionals in developing and providing academy and in-service training on mental health stressors”
x Paragraph 294 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to involve mental health professionals in officer training on use of force”
The Monitoring Team attempted to obtain data on these requirements on multiple occasions during the reporting quarter, yet, as of the end of the reporting quarter, NOPD had not provided the documentation required. Accordingly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with these Consent Decree requirements.5

5

Shortly following the end of this reporting quarter, NOPD did provide information

regarding enhancements to its Employee Assistance/Counseling program. According to NOPD,

the City employs a “contractual psychiatrist” who handles fitness for duty issues relative to

officer-involved shootings. NOPD also explained the Department recently hired an additional

psychologist to assist in this area. Additionally, the Department explained it is in the process of

(footnote continued on next page)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 73 of 126
Page 73 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Based on initial conversations with NOPD, the Monitoring Team does not believe that NOPD has a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree. IPM is pursuing a grant that, if awarded, would be used to fund Project Restoration, a multifaceted program aimed at reducing the high incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder in the victims of police misconduct, harassment, or abuse.
In the upcoming quarter the Monitoring Team will meet with both Chief Landry and IPM to evaluate NOPD’s compliance with the requirements of these paragraphs.
K. Supervision (CD 306-331)
Section M of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct.”
During the reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team visited Districts 4, 5, 6, 7, PIB, and Headquarters. Although the Monitoring Team is unable to find NOPD to be in full compliance with the following paragraphs, NOPD exhibited a high level of cooperation and a strong desire to achieve and maintain compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
1. Duties Of Supervisors
a. CD Paragraph 306
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD supervisors be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers. Further, paragraph 306 provides a detailed definition of what constitutes close and effective supervisions. The NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with the entire definition of close and effective supervision, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance.
NOPD was able to demonstrate that some supervisors perform the following tasks contemplated by the Consent Decree’s definition of close and effective supervision:
x Responding to the scene of certain arrests; x Reviewing arrest reports; and
“reviewing and expanding” the function of its “Employee Relations Unit.” According to NOPD, this unit provides assistance to officers who are injured on the job and assists families of officers who are killed in the line of duty. The recently-provided documentation goes on to discuss a number of other services officered by the City and/or the NOPD. The Monitoring Team will review these services, consider their compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and assess their effectiveness in a future quarter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 74 of 126
Page 74 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
x Reviewing daily activity reports.
NOPD was unable to demonstrate that all supervisors in all Districts met other requirements contemplated by the Consent Decree’s definition of close and effective supervision, including, but not limited to:
x Counseling and redirection; x Maintaining files relating to job performance, including disciplinary reports, performance
evaluations, and counseling memos; and x Community engagement.
In the upcoming quarter, the Monitoring Team will continue to assess each District’s progress toward ensuring that supervisors met all requirements contemplated by the Consent Decree’s definition of close and effective supervision.
b. CD Paragraphs 307-310
Paragraphs 307 through 310 of the Consent Decree include requirements relating to the assignment of supervisors.
x Paragraph 307 requires that, within 270 days of the Effective Date, all Field Operations Bureau District officers shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor.
x Paragraph 308 requires that task force and narcotics supervisors work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, absent specified circumstances.
x Paragraph 309 requires that District Platoon Patrol supervisors work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, absent specified circumstances.
x Paragraph 310 requires that, within 270 days of the Effective Date, first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers, and be available throughout their shift to respond to their subordinates.
NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance, but was able to demonstrate partial compliance. Specifically, NOPD demonstrated each officer was assigned to a single supervisor in most Districts, and generally, there were at least three supervisors assigned to a platoon with eight to twelve officers. The Monitoring Team observed this ratio for FOB officers, platoon officers, and narcotics/task force officers. Additionally, the Monitoring Team observed that, when a sergeant is not on duty in the narcotics or task force units, those detectives/officers are supervised by the platoon supervisor. On occasion, therefore, more than eight personnel report to one supervisor. The Monitoring Team will continue to track NOPD’s progress toward being fully compliant with the requirements of paragraphs 307-310.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 75 of 126
Page 75 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
c. CD Paragraph 311
Paragraph 311 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 270 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and implement a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Training Academy reports this training has not yet been developed, and therefore no personnel have been trained.
d. CD Paragraph 312
Paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree provides that District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command, including ensuring that all officers comply with all applicable laws and policies. NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team observed that supervisors’ activity reports are not designed to capture the information necessary to provide this evidence. Although some Districts stated that information relating to this requirement is provided at roll-call, none could produce evidence to this effect.
e. CD Paragraph 313
Paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. NOPD was unable to provide evidence to demonstrate counseling/redirection, counseling memos, performance evaluations, or disciplinary actions, and therefore could not demonstrate that supervisors were held accountable for performing their duties.
2. Supervisor And Command-Level Training (CD Paragraphs 314-315)
Paragraph 314 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors that both meets the hours requirements of paragraph 314 and the subject matter requirements delineated in paragraph 315. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. NOPD was unable to provide documentation demonstrating compliance with either the hours or subject matter requirements. The Training Academy advised the Monitoring Team that it anticipates developing courses that meet the subject matter requirements of paragraph 315 by the end of 2014.
3. Early Warning System (CD Paragraphs 316-326)
Paragraphs 316 through 326 of the Consent Decree include requirements relating to the development and implementation of an Early Warning System (“EWS”). Paragraph 316 of the Consent Decree includes the general requirement that NOPD develop an EWS, and paragraphs 317-326 include specific requirements relating to the EWS:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 76 of 126
Page 76 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
x Paragraph 317 requires that NOPD create a plan for the implementation of the EWS, including a requirement to hire at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date
x Paragraph 318 requires that NOPD develop and implement a protocol setting out which data fields will include historical data
x Paragraph 319 requires that NOPD develop and implement a protocol for using the EWS and the information obtained from it
x Paragraph 320 requires that the EWS include a computerized relational database x Paragraph 321 requires that the EWS include appropriate identifying information for each
involved employee and civilian x Paragraph 322 requires that NOPD maintain computer hardware in sufficient amount and
in good working order to permit personnel ready and secure access to the EWS x Paragraph 323 includes requirements relating to the length of time NOPD must maintain
information within the EWS x Paragraph 324 requires that the EWS computer program and computer hardware be
operational, implemented, and in use within three years of the Effective Date x Paragraph 325 requires that NOPD provide in-service training to all employees regarding
EWS protocols prior to the implementation of the system x Paragraph 326 requires that NOPD request and receive approval for any modifications to
the EWS
The Monitoring Team reported in the First Quarterly Report that NOPD had provided a copy of an Early Warning System Implementation Plan (dated April 10, 2013). In the most recent reporting quarter, NOPD provided the Monitoring Team a Request For Proposals, dated March 11, 2014, for the procurement of an Early Warning System. The RFP states that all bids are due by May 8, 2014, and the Monitoring Team was informed that the City hopes to award a contract in June.
Although NOPD deserves to be commended for making significant progress toward developing and implementing an EWS, NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with any of these Consent Decree requirements by the end of the reporting quarter. The Monitoring Team will continue to assess NOPD’s progress toward developing and implementing an EWS in the upcoming quarter. In the meantime, the Monitoring Team will monitor whether NOPD continues to use its current system, IAPro, to identify officers for inclusion in its Professional Performance Enhancement Program (PEPP) and Job Performance Improvement Plan as required by Consent Decree paragraph 324.
4. Visual And Audio Documentation Of Police Activities
a. CD Paragraph 327
Paragraph 327 of the Consent Decree provides that, within two years of the Effective Date, NOPD agrees to maintain and operate video cameras and AVL in cars used for a variety of response calls. While NOPD has until August 2015, NOPD was able to demonstrate partial
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 77 of 126
Page 77 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
compliance, but was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team observed the operation, use, and review of recordings in Districts 4, 5, 6, and 7, and will continue to monitor NOPD’s progress toward demonstrating full compliance with paragraph 327.
b. CD Paragraph 328
Paragraph 328 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD develop and implement policies and procedures regarding AVL, in-car cameras, Electronic Control Weapons (“ECWs”), and similar equipment that meet the specific requirements identified in the Consent Decree. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. NOPD reported that its policies and procedures do not include the requisite information relating to this equipment.
c. CD Paragraph 329
Paragraph 329 of the Consent Decree requires that, within 90 days of the Effective Date, NOPD shall develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team discussed the status of implementing a testing schedule with multiple supervisors, but none were aware of any progress. Further, the supervisors reported to the Monitoring Team they were unable to test the ECW recording equipment.
d. CD Paragraph 330
Paragraph 330 of the Consent Decree provides that supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, ECW cameras, and similar equipment, and report any equipment problems. NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this Consent Decree requirement, but was unable to demonstrate full compliance with this requirement.
The Monitoring Team observed conflicting information regarding whether supervisors ensure uniform compliance with the use and functionality requirements of the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team will continue to review whether NOPD develops and implements a uniform system that ensures all supervisors require the use of in-car cameras and report any problems.
e. CD Paragraph 331
Paragraph 331 of the Consent Decree provides that, within 365 days of the Effective Date, NOPD provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations. While NOPD has until August 2015, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. Although at least one supervisor at every duty location was assigned a handheld digital recorder, not all could demonstrate how to use the device or when the device should be used.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 78 of 126
Page 78 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

L. Secondary Employment System (CD 332-374)
Section XVI of the Consent Decree calls generally for the complete restructuring of Secondary Employment practices “to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community.”
In May 2012, prior to appointment of the Consent Decree Monitor, the City created an Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”) to control and manage Secondary Employments under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) John Salomone. OPSE currently has 9 full-time civilian staff.
In December 2013, the City and the NOPD adopted and the Monitoring Team approved their respective secondary employment policies. OPSE’s policies are available on its website.6 Upon approval of the policies, on December 18, 2013, Superintendent Serpas circulated these policies to all officers and provided an explanation of how Secondary Employment would be regulated and managed by the City and the NOPD going forward. Importantly, he instructed all NOPD officers and employees that desired to work details to register with OPSE by January 10, 2013.
OPSE began managing details in August 2013, with full implementation starting in January 2014. As of Director Salomone’s most recent report, April 16, 2014:
x 262 officers have worked jobs under OPSE management (36% of authorized officers) x 183 customers and adding more daily (26 additional in process) x Over 15,000 hours worked x $342,000 paid to officers in 15 successful payrolls; over $314,000 paid since January 1,
2014 x Officer registration status:
x 812 officers have registered (70% of current NOPD personnel strength) x NOPD Compliance Bureau has verified and approved 719 officers for secondary
employment
While these statistics are impressive and reflect the growing success of OPSE, the Monitoring Team has observed continued misunderstandings and confusion among police officers regarding the role of OPSE, the benefits of OPSE, and the future of OPSE. Notwithstanding these misunderstandings and confusion, we also have observed increased acceptance of OPSE from

6

Policies and Procedures for Customers and Officers, City of New Orleans Office of

Secondary Police Employment, available at

http://www.nola.gov/getattachment/OPSE/20131217-OPSE-External-Policy-V3-0.pdf/.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 79 of 126
Page 79 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
officers and from the business community. We believe this increased acceptance is reflected in the trend of the statistics reported to the Monitoring Team by OPSE on a monthly basis.
OPSE continues to work with secondary employers to meet their needs and to address specific issues or concerns they may have. For example, in response to feedback from certain potential customers concerning the burdens imposed by the Consent Decree’s advance payment requirement, Director Salomone sought approval to create an exception. Because the Advance Payment provisions were elements of the Consent Decree, the exception required a modification of the Consent Decree. DOJ and the Monitoring Team reviewed and evaluated the request and concurred that a modification to the Consent Decree was warranted. The parties then submitted a joint motion to amend the Consent Decree to the District Court, which was granted.
Director Salomone and his staff continue to meet and speak with secondary employers concerning OPSE’s operations and their needs. Additional revisions to its policies and procedures may be sought as OPSE continues to receive and respond to customer feedback. Where proposed changes affect the current terms of the Consent Decree, as for example did the Advance Payment provision, the Monitoring Team and DOJ will review and consider them in the same manner in which the request for an advance payment exception was reviewed.
In general, the City and NOPD have either complied with or are moving toward compliance with the Secondary Employment requirements of the Consent Decree Paragraph. Because OPSE has only begun managing secondary employment, it would be premature to evaluate compliance with certain Secondary Employment provisions of the Consent Decree. Compliance with these provisions will be addressed in subsequent reports.
1. Secondary Employment Coordinating Office
a. CD Paragraph 332
Pursuant to paragraph 332 of the Consent Decree, the Secondary Employment Coordinating Office (“Coordinating Office”) “shall have sole authority to arrange, coordinate, arrange fully-auditable payment, and perform all other administrative functions related to NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary law enforcement employment (historically referred to as paid details) and shall be operated in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.” The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. We reviewed the database management systems used by OPSE to manage secondary employment. We also reviewed the systems used to manage payment for secondary employment details. We will continue to monitor the operations of these systems to ensure continued compliance.
b. CD Paragraph 333
Paragraph 333 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office be directed by a civilian with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. This Coordinating Office Director (“Director”) shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. The Director shall be an unclassified civil servant appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 80 of 126
Page 80 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Mayor, and shall remain independent from actual or perceived influence by NOPD. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. John Salomone is a civilian with no current or previous employment relationship with the NOPD or the City of New Orleans. We have monitored his implementation of OPSE and observed that in developing and implementing OPSE’s policies and systems he has been guided by the letter and spirit of the Consent Decree and has demonstrated independence from actual and perceived influence by NOPD.
c. CD Paragraph 334
Paragraph 334 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office employ a civilian in the role of “Major Special Events” Coordinator with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. This Major Special Events Coordinator shall not be a present or former NOPD employee. This Coordinator will report to the Director. Major Special Events include Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, Essence Music Festival, French Quarter Festival, Voodoo Fest, college bowl and college championship events, professional sporting events, and other events as designated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, the City Attorney, City Council, or the Superintendent as a Major Special Event. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The City hired Chis Mark, who like Director Salomone is a retired Army officer with no current or previous ties to the NOPD.
d. CD Paragraph 335
Paragraph 335 of the Consent Decree requires that the Director’s and all other Coordinating Office employees’ salaries be independent of the number of off-duty secondary jobs worked or the amount of revenue generated by secondary employment. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. Salaries of the OPSE employees are set independent of the number of off-duty secondary jobs worked or the revenue generated by secondary employment.
e. CD Paragraph 336
Paragraph 336 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office be staffed with civilians with no actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest, and shall not have been NOPD employees within the previous two years. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. All of OPSE’s employees are civilians with no actual or apparent conflict of interest and have not been NOPD employees within the previous two years.
f. CD Paragraph 337
Paragraph 337 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office not be located in, or immediately adjacent to, NOPD Headquarters, District Headquarters, or a District
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 81 of 126
Page 81 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Substation. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE is located in City Hall.
2. Coordinating Office Responsibilities
a. CD Paragraph 338
Paragraph 338 of the Consent Decree requires that the City develop and implement and the Coordinating Office shall maintain a searchable list of off-duty secondary employment opportunities, which can be accessed through either the existing NOPD employee website or another accessible database. The City is moving toward compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The current system is accessible from the internet but not through the existing NOPD employee website or other websites readily available to NOPD employees.
b. CD Paragraph 339
Paragraph 339 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office maintain a roster of NOPD employees interested in working off-duty secondary employment. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. Officers who want to work secondary employment must register with the OPSE, and OPSE maintains the list of registrants.
c. CD Paragraph 340
Paragraph 340 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office establish a rotation system that provides a fair and equitable number of secondary employment opportunities to all NOPD employees in consideration of preferences for assignment and availability. The Coordinating Office shall rotate NOPD employees working Recurring Secondary Employment positions at least every 365 days. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE has used a commercially available database management system to manage its rotation system. It has acquired and is using the ISELink system to manage the rotation that complies with the requirements of the Consent Decree.
d. CD Paragraph 341
Paragraph 341 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office fill all new secondary employment opportunities and temporary vacancies pursuant to written and consistently applied criteria. NOPD employees shall not be permitted to select substitutes or allow another employee to work an assigned secondary job in place of the employee. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. We have reviewed the criteria used by OPSE to fill secondary employment criteria. We have also confirmed that NOPD employees are not permitted to select substitutes for a scheduled employment opportunity. We will continue to monitor compliance with this requirement in practice.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 82 of 126
Page 82 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
e. CD Paragraph 342
Paragraph 342 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office establish an after-hours notification system, which provides them the capability of accepting information and making assignments 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE currently assigns an employee to assume afterhours duty to ensure that assignments can be made 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. OPSE is currently exploring alternatives that would relieve its employees of assuming this responsibility. We will continue to monitor compliance with this requirement.
f. CD Paragraph 343
Paragraph 343 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office remove NOPD employees from the secondary employment roster where the employees are performing unsatisfactorily, are under suspension, administrative reassignment, or have been charged with a crime. At this early stage of implementation of the OPSE, there have been no identified instances of unsatisfactory performance that would trigger this obligation; however, the Monitoring Team will continue to monitor compliance with this requirement.
g. CD Paragraph 344
Paragraph 344 of the Consent Decree requires that Officers engaging in secondary employment be required to comply with all NOPD internal procedures governing off-duty secondary employment, including the completion of an NOPD Secondary Employment Authorization Form. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE and the NOPD established registration policies and procedures. Only officers who have completed the required paperwork are eligible for secondary employment. In future quarters we will audit the paperwork to confirm the policies and procedures are consistently followed.
h. CD Paragraph 345
Paragraph 345 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office develop and implement a plan for working with NOPD to ensure supervisors conduct in-person inspections of secondary employment sites based upon the frequency worked. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement; however, the Monitoring Team understands OPSE is working toward compliance. The Monitoring Team will continue to monitor compliance with this requirement.
i. CD Paragraph 346
Paragraph 346 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office ensure no NOPD employee is supervising another employee of higher rank. The assignment system implemented by the NOPD takes into account rank and is designed to comply with this
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 83 of 126
Page 83 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
element of the Consent Decree, and the Monitoring Team will continue to monitor compliance with this requirement.
j. CD Paragraph 347
Paragraph 347 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office be responsible for collecting and maintaining a searchable database of all secondary employment worked. This database shall be searchable by secondary employment assignment and by employee and shall identify the employee working the secondary employment, secondary employment hours, and assignment locations. This database shall maintain historic and current information on all employees’ secondary employment. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE maintains a searchable database management system that meets the requirements of this paragraph, which it uses to make assignments and to pay officers.
k. CD Paragraph 348
Paragraph 348 of the Consent Decree requires that a schedule of fees be established by the City to offset costs associated with the coordination and required support provided through the Coordinating Office to take into account costs, including but not limited to, administrative fees, hourly wage rates, and equipment usages. The schedule of fees shall be publicly available. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The City Council approved pay rates for secondary employment. The approved rates are available on the OPSE website.
l. CD Paragraph 349
Paragraph 349 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office be responsible for the annual, public release of the following information:
x The number of NOPD employees who worked secondary employment by District and rank;
x The average number of secondary employment hours worked by District and rank; x The salaries of Coordinating Office employees and the Coordinating Office’s
administrative operational costs; and x The net and gross amounts of City income derived through secondary employment.
A draft annual report has been provided to and reviewed by the Monitoring Team. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement; however, OPSE has demonstrated that it has been moving toward compliance.
m. CD Paragraph 350
Paragraph 350 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office ensure all potential employers are notified of their responsibilities. The OPSE and NOPD have issued guidelines notifying officers that register to work secondary employment details of these
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 84 of 126 Page 84 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
obligations. Officers must acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the requirements and their agreement to abide by them. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
3. Secondary Employment Compensation
a. CD Paragraph 351
Paragraph 351 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office, working with NOPD and the City, develop and implement an auditable payment system that ensures that secondary employment pay is made to NOPD employees. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. We observed a demonstration of this system. We will continue to monitor compliance with this paragraph.
b. CD Paragraph 352
Paragraph 352 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD employees working secondary employment not be permitted to receive any compensation, either cash or in-kind, including bonuses or gifts, unless such compensation, bonus, or gift, is provided through and documented by the Coordinating Office and is in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. Nominal compensation in the form of food or beverages is permitted in accordance with the Louisiana Ethics Code for public employees. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
c. CD Paragraph 353
Paragraph 353 of the Consent Decree requires that travel time to and from secondary employment not be compensated, unless it involves specialized patrol services or use of specialized equipment. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
d. CD Paragraph 354
Paragraph 354 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD employees not be permitted to solicit secondary compensation or employment. Individuals or entities seeking to employ NOPD employees to work secondary employment must work through the Coordinating Office. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 85 of 126
Page 85 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. Limitations On Secondary Employment Work
a. CD Paragraph 356
Paragraph 356 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD and the Coordinating Office establish a standard form by which NOPD employees can register to work secondary employment assignments. No employee shall be eligible to work secondary employment without first registering with the NOPD Compliance Section and obtaining authorization from the employee’s direct supervisor and unit commander. Secondary employment authorization shall be valid for one calendar year. When determining whether an NOPD employee qualifies for authorization to work secondary employment, NOPD and the Coordinating Office shall evaluate factors that include:
x The quality of the employee’s primary employment performance, assessed pursuant to written criteria;
x Whether the employee is an active member of the NOPD or grandfathered reserve officer in good standing;
x The applicant’s disciplinary record, complaint history, and work performance history; x The applicant’s level of experience; and x Whether the employee is seeking a supervisory or non-supervisory position.
The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
b. CD Paragraph 357
Paragraph 357 of the Consent Decree states that only a POST certified commissioned member who has successfully completed his/her FTO training and has achieved permanent status as Civil Service “Police Officer I” may work police-related secondary employment assignments unsupervised. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
c. CD Paragraph 358
Paragraph 358 of the Consent Decree states that POST certified commissioned members who completed FTO training, but have not obtained permanent status of Civil Service “Police Officer I,” may work secondary employment if supervised by a ranking officer at the grade of sergeant or above. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
d. CD Paragraph 359
Paragraph 359 of the Consent Decree states that POST certified commissioned members hired as lateral transfers successfully completing FTO training may work authorized secondary
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 86 of 126
Page 86 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
employment unsupervised. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
e. CD Paragraph 360
Paragraph 360 of the Consent Decree states that, regardless of prior approval, members shall not engage in secondary employment while absent in the following status: Sick; Injured On-Duty; Worker’s Compensation; Maternity Leave; Leave Without Pay; or Suspended or under Administrative Reassignment with a restricted police commission. Members must return to full duty status and have completed a full tour of duty prior to working a secondary employment opportunity. The City’s Secondary Employment policies comply with this Consent Decree requirement. Continued compliance in practice will be the subject of ongoing monitoring.
f. CD Paragraph 361
Paragraph 361 of the Consent Decree states that secondary employment for City departments and agencies shall be prohibited. Instead, departments and agencies shall cover compensation for employees through authorized City reimbursement procedures. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
g. CD Paragraph 362
Paragraph 362 of the Consent Decree identifies prohibited types of Secondary Employment. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
h. CD Paragraph 363
Paragraph 363 of the Consent Decree states that NOPD employees are prohibited from working secondary employment that conflicts with the employee’s NOPD duties and ethical obligations. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree Requirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
i. CD Paragraph 364
Paragraph 364 of the Consent Decree requires that Secondary Employment by NOPD employees be limited to a maximum of twenty-four hours per seven-day work week (Sunday through Saturday). Exceptions to the hour limitation may be granted for Major Special Events where manpower requirements are so intensive that sufficient resources may not be available for the safe operation of the event (e.g., Jazz Fest and Mardi Gras). The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 87 of 126
Page 87 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
j. CD Paragraph 365
Paragraph 365 of the Consent Decree requires that no employee, including reserve officers, work more than sixteen hours within a twenty-four hour period. (The twenty-four hour period begins the first time the employee reports for either regular duty or secondary employment allowing for a minimum of eight hours of rest within each twenty-four hour period.) These hours are cumulative and include normal scheduled work hours, overtime, off-duty secondary employment, and outside employment. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
k. CD Paragraph 366
Paragraph 366 of the Consent Decree Requirements concerns eligibility of Commissioned Reserve officers to accept secondary employment. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
5. Secondary Employment Employee Responsibilities
a. CD Paragraph 367
Paragraph 367 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD employees seeking to work any secondary employment submit a signed Secondary Employment Registration Form (“Registration Form”) initially and annually thereafter to the Coordinating Office. This Registration Form shall include acknowledgment that:
x the employee understands that working secondary employment is a privilege subject to strict criteria;
x the employee represents NOPD while working secondary employment; x the employee must abide by all NOPD policies while working secondary employment;
and x the employee may be disciplined by NOPD for policy violations committed while
working secondary employment.
The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. We reviewed OPSE’s registration form, which meets the requirements of this paragraph. We have been advised that officers are required to complete the form prior to working secondary employment jobs. We will audit the paperwork in future quarters.
b. CD Paragraph 368
Paragraph 368 of the Consent Decree requires that employees working secondary employment have the same responsibility to carry appropriate departmental equipment (e.g., police radios) and document their activities in the same manner as if they were on-duty,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 88 of 126
Page 88 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
including completing incident, arrest, and Use of Force Reports, and reporting allegations of misconduct or observed misconduct. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree rrequirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
6. Secondary Employment Supervision
a. CD Paragraph 369
Paragraph 369 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office, working with NOPD, determine the number of employees and supervisors necessary to work a secondary job, considering factors that include:
x The anticipated number of people attending the function; x Whether alcoholic beverages will be served; x Whether the event is open to the public or is private/by invitation only; x The location of the event; and x The history of the event and employer.
The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE coordinates with the City’s permitting office and with the appropriate NOPD officer to determine the number of officers required for a secondary employment job.
b. CD Paragraph 370
Paragraph 370 of the Consent Decree sets forth the minimum supervisory requirements for secondary employment. The City has demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE’s policies satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. We will audit the records of secondary employment jobs worked to ensure continued compliance.
c. CD Paragraph 371
Paragraph 371 of the Consent Decree requires that sergeants and lieutenants be allowed to back-fill a police officer opening, but those supervisors electing to fill such a vacancy are eligible for compensation at the hourly rate approved for the police officer position as negotiated between the Coordinating Office and the employer. Captains or above shall only be allowed to fill open vacancies at a supervisory staffing level equivalent to a captain’s position. The City’s Secondary Employment policies demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree rrequirement. The Monitoring Team will monitor compliance in practice.
d. CD Paragraph 373
Paragraph 373 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office implement a system so that on-duty NOPD patrol supervisors are aware of each secondary job within that supervisor’s geographical coverage area and the identity of each employee working each
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 89 of 126
Page 89 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
secondary job. The City has been unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE is aware of the need to establish procedures to satisfy this requirement of the Consent Decree.
e. CD Paragraph 374
Paragraph 374 of the Consent Decree requires that the Coordinating Office implement a system so that each District shall have a current and historical record of all secondary employment worked in the District. The City has been unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. OPSE is aware of the need to establish procedures to satisfy this requirement of the Consent Decree.
M. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, And Adjudication (CD 375426)
Section XVII of the Consent Decree sets forth the NOPD’s obligations with respect to its misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication process. The Consent Decree provides that NOPD and the City must ensure all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are investigated fully and fairly; all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. The Monitoring Team’s specific findings regarding Section XVII are described here.
1. CD Paragraph 378
Paragraph 378 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “have a civilian serve as PIB commander.” The PIB has been run by Deputy Chief Arlinda Westbrook since shortly after Superintendent Serpas’s appointment in May 2010. Chief Westbrook previously served as Deputy City Attorney. She moved to the NOPD and assumed command of the PIB as a civilian. NOPD is in compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
2. CD Paragraph 379
Paragraph 379 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD and the City, among other things, ensure that a sufficient number of well-trained staff are assigned and available to complete and review thorough and timely misconduct investigations in accordance with the requirements of the Consent Decree. Paragraph 379 goes on to provide that ICOs (Integrity Control Officers) “shall report directly to the PIB Commander on PIB-related matters.” The Monitoring Team will assess the sufficiency and training of the PIB staff in a future quarter. In this quarter, however, the Monitoring Team did assess whether NOPD’s ICOs report to the PIB Commander on PIB-related matters as required by the Consent Decree.
ICOs historically were tasked with conducting administrative internal investigations within the various NOPD Districts. These investigations were similar to the investigations being performed by their fellow PIB officers, but typically were of a less serious nature (i.e. non-
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 90 of 126
Page 90 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

criminal investigations). In April 2011, however, the NOPD restructured the ICO function and removed the ICOs from the Districts, placing them instead in a centralized location.7
On September 23, 2012, NOPD again restructured the ICO function into what now is known as the “Administrative Support Unit,” or the ASU. See Field Operations Bureau Policy #8A. While Policy #8A formally eliminated the position of ICO, the New Orleans Civil Service Commission found that the responsibilities of the ASU mirror the vast majority of the responsibilities of the former ICOs. See Gremillion, et al. v. Department of Police, No. 7992, Aug. 9, 2013. While the Consent Decree has not been modified to substitute “ASU” for ICO,” the Monitoring Team views the terms as interchangeable for our monitoring purposes.
The ASU formally falls under the supervision of the Field Operations Bureau, not the PIB. See Public Integrity Bureau Complaint # 2013-937N (attached exhibit – email from Bernadine Kelly re ASU Chain of Command). In testimony before the Civil Service Commission, Deputy Superintendent Albert explained the reason for the reporting structure was to streamline the responsibilities of the officers assigned to the ASU and “to ensure that [there was] compliance with the policies and instructions throughout the department.” NOPD contends the ASU reporting structure complies with Paragraph 379 of the Consent Decree because the ASU officers report to Chief Westbrook (PIB). The Monitoring Team concludes differently.
To assess compliance with Paragraph 379 of the Consent Decree, as well as to evaluate the work being performed by both PIB and ASU, the Monitoring Team requested a broad range of documents from the City relating to the functions currently performed by the ASU. NOPD confirmed it produced all requested documents that exist. Based upon our review of the produced materials, coupled with our analysis of a Civil Service Commission hearing relating to the nature of the work performed by ASU, we conclude (1) the ASU performs work similar to, and in some cases indistinguishable from, their PIB counterparts, and (2) the ASU does not report to the PIB Commander on PIB-related matters as required by the Consent Decree.
a. ASU Performs Primarily PIB-Type Functions
NOPD’s internal documentation states the ASU is supposed to perform a multitude of discrete tasks. Field Operations Bureau Policy #8A. These tasks cover such things as performing PIB investigations, attending community meetings, reviewing narcotic arrests made by FOB units, and performing satisfaction surveys. Our review, however, suggests that the ASU is performing few of these tasks beyond conducting PIB investigations. Our view in this regard is supported by the following:
x Discussions with ASU personnel. Over the course of the reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team interviewed the members of the ASU on multiple occasions. The ASU

7

The ASU function currently is housed in a trailer located in City Park off Harrison

Avenue, next to the NOPD Canine and Mounted Units.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 91 of 126
Page 91 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
team stated that the vast majority of their time is spent conducting PIB investigations, and that very little of their time is spent on their other functions.
x NOPD issued Job Performance Improvement Plans to several ASU personnel criticizing them for failing to perform their non-investigation functions. See Job Performance Improvement Plans (provided by NOPD in response to the Monitoring Team’s request for relevant documents).
x In a recent Civil Service Commission challenge to the pay scale of the ASU, the Civil Service Commission concluded the ASU was entitled to a 10% pay increase based upon the fact that the ASU was performing PIB investigation duties. See Gremillion, et al. v. Department of Police, No. 7992, Aug. 9, 2013. The Civil Service Commission awarded the pay differential on all work performed by ASU, suggesting that the Civil Service Commission found that PIB-type work dominated ASU’s workload. Id.
In short, we conclude that PIB investigation work dominates the daily activities of the ASU. The Monitoring Team has received copies of ASU’s ComStat reports, and will review and analyze these data in the upcoming quarter to further verify this finding.
b. ASU Does Not Report To PIB
While the Monitoring Team understands that, on paper, the ASU reports to the PIB Commander, in practice such reporting is illusory. Our review identified little if any indicia of control or supervision performed by the PIB over the ASU. For example,
x NOPD was unable to produce a single example of the PIB overturning, or even questioning, a decision by an ASU investigator. NOPD confirmed it was unaware of any instance where the PIB overruled or modified a report prepared by an ASU investigator.
x According to the members of PIB with whom we spoke this quarter, ASU investigations are received and filed by PIB without any critical, substantive review.
x NOPD was unable to identify any meaningful management or oversight of the ASU function by any member of PIB. While we identified coordination and communication between ASU and the Commanders within the Field Operations Bureau, we identified no similar coordination or communications between ASU and PIB.
x Documents produced to the Monitoring Team by NOPD this quarter suggest that ASU investigators were told not to communicate with the PIB. See Public Integrity Bureau Complaint # 2013-937N (attached exhibit – email from Bernadine Kelly re ASU Chain of Command).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 92 of 126
Page 92 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

These findings support the Monitoring Team’s conclusion that the ASU investigators report to the PIB in name only. They do not report to the PIB in any meaningful way.
c. Conclusion
Based upon this assessment, the team concluded NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 379 of the Consent Decree. Specifically, the Monitoring Team has determined that the ICOs, now called ASU officers, appear to perform primarily PIB maters, but do not report to PIB on such matters.8
3. Discipline Process And Transparency (CD 421-425)
The Monitoring Team attended multiple disciplinary hearings this quarter to assess compliance with numerous Consent Decree elements. Specifically, the Monitoring Team monitored 10 disciplinary hearings, including Commander-level hearings and Deputy Chief-level hearings. Without disclosing the details of those particular hearings, the issues covered ranged from failure to submit a report to more serious matters such as drunk driving while operating a city vehicle following an unauthorized extra-duty detail.
While the Monitoring Team will report more fully on the issue of Disciplinary Hearings in a future Quarterly Report, our preliminary observations suggest that NOPD has not demonstrated compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree. Based upon the disciplinary hearings we monitored, we cannot yet say the hearings are resulting in fair and consistent discipline. We saw evidence of inconsistent hearing procedures, deviations from the letter and spirit of the Consent Decree, and troubling conclusions by the hearing officer. We saw evidence that the IPM is not consistently permitted to participate in disciplinary hearings as contemplated by the Memorandum of Agreement between NOPD and IPM. 9 Furthermore,

8

The NOPD has informed the Monitoring Team that, on March 27, 2014, the Department

received a promotional register from the New Orleans Civil Service Department for the position

of Police Sergeant. According to NOPD, coincident with the promotion of the new sergeants, it

began “assigning responsibility for disciplinary investigations involving administrative policy

violations to an immediate supervisor across all Bureaus.” Effective with this change, ASU

officers no longer will be charged with handling disciplinary investigations. The Monitoring

Team will confirm that this is, in fact, the case.

9

Paragraphs 37-41 of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between NOPD and

the IPM relate to “Discipline and Hearings.” Among other things, the MOU provides NOPD

must give IPM advance notice of disciplinary hearings, complete access to the proceedings, and

complete access to all materials. NOPD also must permit IPM to attend all disciplinary hearings

and provide IPM with notice of hearing officer findings. At the hearings, the MOU contemplates

IPM will “make determinations as to whether departmental rules or policies have been violated,

(footnote continued on next page)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor

Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 93 of 126
Page 93 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD’s current penalty schedule, found in Procedure 1021, has not been approved by DOJ or the Monitor.
The Monitoring Team plans to review these and other related issues closely and report our findings in a future Quarterly Report. The Monitoring Team also plans to carefully analyze NOPD’s disciplinary data to fully monitor whether discipline is being imposed across the NOPD community on a fair, unbiased, and constitutional basis.
IX. Agreement Implementation And Enforcement (CD 444-492)
A. Review Of PIB Investigations (CD 454)
The Consent Decree requires that NOPD “provide each investigation of a serious use of force or use of force that is the subject of a misconduct investigation, and each investigation report of a serious misconduct complaint investigation (i.e., criminal misconduct; unreasonable use of force; discriminatory policing; false arrest or planting evidence; untruthfulness/false statements; unlawful search; retaliation; sexual misconduct; domestic violence; and theft)” to the Monitoring Team before closing the investigation or communicating the recommended disposition to the subject of the investigation or review.
During the past several months, the Monitoring Team has worked closely with NOPD PIB on a process to ensure the Monitoring Team receives timely notification of the opening of any/every investigation involving allegations of serious misconduct. We have had success in receiving notification of serious Use of Force events, but timely notification of investigations into allegations of serious misconduct still is a work in process.
Soon after our appointment by the District Court in August 2013, the Monitoring Team met with Deputy Chief Westbrook (in charge of PIB) and members of her staff to discuss ways to ensure we could meet our obligation to review completed investigations without adversely impacting investigation time limits imposed by state statutes. Subsequently, on October 17, 2013, the Monitoring Team sent NOPD a protocol for reviewing misconduct and Use of Force investigations pursuant to Paragraph 454 of the Consent Decree. The protocol set forth NOPD’s obligations to provide each investigation to the Monitoring Team before closing and before communicating any disposition recommendation. After several additional meetings and document exchanges, on February 16, 2014, NOPD agreed upon an internal process, and
make recommendations regarding appropriate discipline, and review the appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions as authorized by paragraph 13 of the Ordinance. These determinations, recommendations, and findings shall be submitted to the NOPD in writing within seven (7) days of receipt of notice of the discipline.” While the MOU does not speak directly to what role IPM plays during a disciplinary hearing, the Monitoring Team assumes, in order to be meaningful, it at least would involve asking questions and engaging in discussion with the hearing officer outside of the presence of the subject of the hearing.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 94 of 126
Page 94 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
assigned responsibility for providing the Monitoring Team with notice of complete investigations within twenty-four hours of the date the investigation is substantially complete. Notwithstanding these agreements, NOPD has failed to provide the Monitoring Team with timely notification of the substantial completion of investigations into allegations of serious misconduct.
Over the ensuing weeks, the Monitoring Team explored alternate methods of ensuring we were made aware of allegations of serious misconduct so we could ensure our timely review of PIB investigations. Eventually, we requested – and now are receiving – weekly copies of the PIB Control Log, the Intake and Administrative Sections weekly briefings, and all DI-1’s, which are the internal forms on which allegation of misconduct initially are documented. With considerable time and effort, the Monitoring Team developed a spreadsheet comprising the data we extracted from these documents to enable our identification of allegations of misconduct that fall within the definition of serious misconduct.
While workable as a temporary measure, maintaining the resulting process is labor intensive and time consuming. It also does not ensure the Monitoring Team is made aware of all serious misconduct investigations in a timely fashion. It is more of a backstop than a primary solution.
Moreover, the information we are extracting from the above listed documents reflects what is known at the time the allegation is received and logged at PIB. If the ensuing investigation subsequently uncovers officer behavior that rises to the level of serious misconduct, the Monitoring Team will not know of the outcome without PIB alerting us to their findings. Consequently, we have had further discussions with PIB and are optimistic we will have a new process in place to ensure timely notification of completed investigations into serious misconduct. Specifically, going forward, PIB will send the Monitoring Team a digital copy of each investigator’s investigative summary within twenty-four hours of its completion. This report will detail the entire investigation, including the investigator’s findings and recommendations. It is the basis for any further action by the Department, including discipline or other corrective action. We are optimistic this new process will move the NOPD toward compliance with its Consent Decree requirements. At the moment, however, NOPD is unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
B. Coordination With IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides that the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team and IPM communicated frequently during this quarter and coordinated their efforts to the extent practicable. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it continues to receive from IPM and the Office of the Inspector General.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 95 of 126
Page 95 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.” Among other things, the Consent Decree Implementation Unit is intended to
x Coordinate the City and NOPD’s compliance and implementation activities; x Facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the City and NOPD
personnel to the Monitoring Team and DOJ, as needed; x Ensure that all data, documents, and records are maintained as provided in this
Agreement; and x Assist in assigning implementation and compliance related tasks to NOPD personnel, as
directed by the Superintendent or his designee.
A fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. Unfortunately, throughout the prior quarter, NOPD was not in compliance with this requirement.
At the outset of the Consent Decree, NOPD vested the duties of the Consent Decree Implementation Unit in a former NOPD officer and manager reporting directly to the Superintendent. Subsequently, on October 23, 2013, Superintendent Serpas made a formal offer of employment to Mr. (now Deputy Chief) Jay Ginsberg to lead the then-recently created “Compliance Bureau,” which, among other things, was intended to oversee the Department’s implementation of the Consent Decree. Deputy Chief Ginsberg accepted the offer that same evening, but his official engagement by the NOPD had to await City Counsel endorsement, which did not occur immediately. On December 1, 2013, Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg became the director of the NOPD Compliance Bureau. Deputy Chief Ginsberg continues to lead the Compliance Bureau, reporting directly to the Superintendent.
In our First Quarterly Report, we reported that NOPD advised us it was “working toward a goal of having ‘all staffing parameters for this new bureau in place on, or before, December 1st, 2013.’” As of the close of the current reporting period, however, NOPD has not achieved this goal. Indeed, as of March 31, 2014, Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg had only one employee, a police commander, reporting to him to support Consent Decree compliance. This lack of resources has contributed to a number of our findings that NOPD has been unable to demonstrate compliance with several Consent Decree provisions.
On March 17, 2014, NOPD petitioned the New Orleans Civil Service Commission to create five new “unclassified” positions in the NOPD Compliance Bureau. See Civil Service Commissions Agenda for March 17, 2014. Following arguments by Deputy Superintendent
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 96 of 126
Page 96 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Ginsberg and Superintendent Serpas, the Civil Service Commission approved NOPD’s request for the five new positions upon the condition that the positions be publically advertised and include minimum qualifications, expected duties, and salary range. The Civil Service Commission further required that the position must report directly to Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg (not to an NOPD Commander or to any other Civil Service position). The approved positions will “sunset” after three years, at which time NOPD will have to return to the Civil Service Commission and request the approval for the positions be extended.
Following the Civil Service Commission’s approval10 of the Compliance Bureau positions, NOPD advertised the positions through the City’s employment web site. See Appendix IV for a copy of the job announcement.
While the approval for, and announcement of, these new positions obviously reflect forward movement, the Monitoring Team remains concerned that the Compliance Implementation Unit remains under-resourced some seven months following the implementation of the Consent Decree. In particular, while we see value in NOPD’s decision to create new, dedicated positions, and, while we understand the process in New Orleans to establish a new “unclassified” position is not always a rapid or simple one, NOPD never was precluded from reassigning existing personnel to support Chief Ginsberg pending hiring of new personnel. The Monitoring Team will continue to assess and report on the City’s ongoing efforts to bring itself into compliance with this critical Consent Decree requirement.
D. NOPD And City Cooperation (CD 470-476)
The Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. See, e.g., CD 470-476. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD did cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting quarter.
X. What Are We Doing Next Quarter?
The Monitoring Team will continue to focus on a wide range of Consent Decree elements throughout the third quarter. A primary focus of our efforts, however, will be working with the NOPD to facilitate the development of policies and procedures that satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree since, in many ways, the policies are the threshold compliance element upon which other critical Consent Decree requirements rest. Training, for example, cannot be effectively implemented until the trainers have good policies on which to train. Of course,
10 While the Civil Service Commission is the entity that initiates the process to amend a Unclassified Pay Plan in New Orleans, the City Council then must meet and vote to amend the Plan by ordinance. The City Council met and adopted the necessary ordinance on April 10, 2014. The ordinance was received by the Mayor on April 14, 2014 and approved on April 16, 2014.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 97 of 126
Page 97 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
whether officers’ conduct on the streets—the ultimate issue of concern—complies with the Consent Decree is dependent upon Consent Decree compliant policies and training. The disciplinary process is also an example of an important Consent Decree element highly dependent upon sound, well-drafted policies. Although we have monitored all these areas (training, officer conduct, and disciplinary hearings), and compared them to current NOPD policies, which is important to benchmarking where NOPD stands today in order to measure its progress, the ultimate test is whether NOPD’s policies and practices meet the requirements for constitutional policing as set forth and agreed upon in the Consent Decree.
Our third quarter also will see the implementation of the City’s first Consent Decree “Biennial Community Survey.” Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD and the City conduct a “reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” As described in our First Quarterly Report, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ to craft a Biennial Community Survey that is fair, balanced, and effective. The result of this effort is a three-part survey that encompasses the views of community members, police officers, and detained suspects. As of the publication of this Second Quarterly Report, the Police Officer component of this survey will have been completed. The Community Survey and the Detainee Survey are slated for implementation this calendar year.
Finally, our third quarter will continue to involve the close monitoring of NOPD’s ongoing practices in a of number of Consent Decree areas, including disciplinary hearings, biasfree policing, Use of Force events, misconduct investigations, secondary employment, and more. Such activities will remain a core component of our monitoring activities in every reporting quarter.
XI. Conclusion
As noted at the outset of this Second Quarterly Report, based on our work and observations thus far, we believe the NOPD remains committed to the promises it made to the citizens of New Orleans (and its officers) in the Consent Decree. NOPD leadership with whom we interact on a daily basis express genuine interest in making NOPD a better police department and in effectuating the improvements guaranteed by the Consent Decree. Our daily interactions with the rank and file further confirm our view that within NOPD are a large number of ethical, caring, and professional officers who also are dedicated to improving the Department.
Our work, however, also has revealed that, in many important ways, the NOPD is not yet consistently delivering the quality of services the people of New Orleans are entitled to and are demanding. While we have received compliments from members of the community about the NOPD generally, and about many individual NOPD officers in particular, it is clear there nevertheless is widespread dissatisfaction with the overall performance of the NOPD.
Meeting their obligations under the Consent Decree requires that the City and NOPD have (a) incorporated the Consent Decree requirements into meaningful and understandable policies, (b) effectively trained all relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their responsibilities;
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 98 of 126 Page 98 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com and, perhaps most importantly, (c) ensured that the requirements of the Consent Decree are being carried out in actual practice. The Monitoring Team will continue vigilantly to observe, assess, and report on whether the NOPD is meeting each of these obligations. We believe the transformation embodied in the Consent Decree is achievable, but will require persistence on the part of the NOPD and patience on the part of those whom they serve.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 99 of 126 Page 99 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
APPENDIXES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 100 of 126
Page 100 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. Appendix I: Summary of Consent Decree Elements
The Consent Decree is comprehensive in nature and details specific areas for corrective action including: use of force; stops searches, seizures and arrests; photographic lineups; custodial interrogations; bias-free policing; policing free of gender bias; community engagement; recruitment; training; performance evaluations; promotions; officer assistance and support; supervision; secondary employment; and misconduct-complaint intake, investigation and adjudication.
The Consent Decree represents a proactive and robust mandate for reform of the policies, training, and practices of the NOPD with specific agreed-upon corrective actions and timeframes for implementation. What follows is a summary of NOPD’s core obligations under the Consent Decree.
Policies and Training
NOPD agrees that its policies and procedures shall reflect and express the Department’s core values and priorities, and provide clear direction to ensure that officers and civilian employees enforce the law effectively and constitutionally. NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all NOPD officers and employees are trained to understand and be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities pursuant to NOPD policies and procedures.
Use of Force
NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States and that any unreasonable Use of Force events are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to affect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment.
Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.
Stops, Searches, and Arrests
NOPD agrees to ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to ensure that investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are part of an effective overall crime prevention strategy; are consistent with community priorities for enforcement; and are carried out with fairness and respect.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 101 of 126
Page 101 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Custodial Interrogations
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Photographic Lineups
NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic lineups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.
Bias-Free Policing
NOPD agrees to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. In conducting its activities, NOPD agrees to ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without bias based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Policing Free of Gender Bias
NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the New Orleans Family Justice Center, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response.
Community Engagement
NOPD agrees to promote and strengthen partnerships within the community, and to engage constructively with the community, to ensure collaborative problem solving and ethical and bias-free policing, and to increase community confidence in the Department.
Recruitment
NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers. NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service Commission, agree to ensure that NOPD’s recruit program assesses each applicant in a manner that is valid, reliable, fair, and legally defensible.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 102 of 126
Page 102 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Academy and In-Service Training
NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety.
Officer Assistance and Support
NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.
Performance Evaluations and Promotions
NOPD agrees to ensure that officers who police effectively and ethically are recognized through the performance evaluation process, and that officers who lead effectively and ethically are identified and receive appropriate consideration for promotion. NOPD shall further ensure that poor performance or policing that otherwise undermines public safety and community trust is reflected in officer evaluations so that NOPD can identify and effectively respond.
Supervision
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that an adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors are deployed in the field to allow supervisors to provide the close and effective supervision necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally; to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct, and prevent misconduct.
Secondary Employment System
The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 103 of 126 Page 103 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Transparency and Oversight
To ensure comprehensive, effective, and transparent oversight of NOPD, NOPD and the City agree to develop, implement, and maintain systems that are meant to be sustained after the completion of the Consent Decree. To facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, these oversight systems shall ensure that improper incidents, practices, or trends are identified and corrected in an equitable and timely manner.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 104 of 126
Page 104 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XIII. Appendix II: NOPD Policy Status Matrix

NOPD POLICY

POLICY DUE DATES

Approved

Policy Procedure

Title

Consent Decree Paragraph(s)

Consent Decree Element

Monitoring Team Informal policy review Meeting(s) with
NOPD

NOPD Submitted P(&PR) to Monitoring Team and
DOJ

Monitoring Team
Response Due

Monitoring Team/DOJ Response to
NOPD

NOPD Response

209

No

Weapons Training & Requalification

28

Use of Force 10/17/2013

300

Yes

Use of Force

27-29; 76-95

Use of Force 10/17/2013

301

No

Use of Force Continuum

27-29? Use of Force

3/31/2014 4/21/2014 4/8/2013

302

Yes

Use of Force Review Boards

108

Use of Force 10/8/2013

306

Yes

Handcuffing and Restraints

27-29?

Use of Force 10/17/2013

308

No

Control Devices and Techniques

69?

Use of Force 9/20/2013

309

Yes

Electronic Control Weapons

54-68

Use of Force

10/4/13; 10/23/2013

Force

310

No

Investigative Team/Officer

96-107 Use of Force 10/4/2013

Involved Shooting

312

No

Firearms

32-37? Use of Force 10/11/2013 12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

313

No

Ammunition

32-37? Use of Force 10/17/2013 12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

314

No

Vehicle Pursuits

30-31

Use of Force 10/3/2013

12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

318

No

Canines

38-53

Use of Force 10/17/2013 12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

320

Yes

Domestic Violence

212-222

Policing Free of Gender Bias

10/10/2013

322

Yes

Search and Seizure

127-140,

Stops, Searches &
Arrests

10/11/2013

12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

Stops,

323

Yes

Custody Searches 127-140? Searches & 10/11/2013 12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

Arrests

336

Yes

Victim and Witness Assistance

178-189

Bias-Free Policing, Language Assistance

10/10/13; 10/29/13

361

No

Property Loss Report

11/11/2013 12/11/2013 12/11/2013 12/18/2013 Yes

Discriminatory

402

No

Policing/Bias Based Profiling,

48-58

Bias-Free Policing

10/10/2013 12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

LBGT Community

Arrest,

419

Yes

Arrests

38-45

Search &

10/10/2013

Seizure

Contacts,

440

Yes

Detentions and Photographing

171-176?

Photographic Line-Ups

10/29/2013

12/6/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 3/31/2014

Detainees

446

Yes

Digital Mobile Video Audio

165, 331

Photographic Line-Ups

10/10/2013

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 105 of 126
Page 105 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

NOPD POLICY

POLICY DUE DATES

Policy
447 448 600 1000 1020
1021
1023 1025 1040

Procedure
Yes No Yes
No
Yes Yes No No

Title
Recording Body-Worn
Camera Mobile Digital Computer & AVL Investigation and Prosecution Recruitment
Misconduct Complaints / Disciplinary Investigations
Disciplinary Hearings/ Penalties
Negotiated Settlement Mediation Settlement Secondary Employment

Consent Decree Paragraph(s)

Consent Decree Element

Monitoring Team Informal policy review Meeting(s) with
NOPD

NOPD Submitted P(&PR) to Monitoring Team and
DOJ

315, 327331
234-244 375
421-424 375,376, 388-401

Photographic Line-Ups
Photographic Line-Ups
Recruitment Misconduct Complaint
Intake, Investigation,
and Adjudication Misconduct Complaint
Intake, Investigation,
and Adjudication

332-374

Secondary Employment

10/10/2013 10/10/2013 10/11/2013
10/18/2013 2/2014 9/2013

11/11/2013
12/6/2013 12/6/2013 8/30/2013 12/3/2013

Monitoring Team
Response Due
12/2/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013

Monitoring Team/DOJ Response to
NOPD 12/5/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013 12/24/13
12/31/2013

NOPD Response
1/6/2014

Approved Yes
Yes Yes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 106 of 126
Page 106 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XIV. Appendix III: Vehicle Collision Data Analysis

Table 1. Frequency of Collisions by Year and Month

Frequency of Collisions

Month January

Total # Collisions
117

2007 23

2008 30

2009 21

2010 17

2011 5

February

157

30

24

22

35

6

March

139

31

14

33

25

4

April

122

14

29

24

13

5

May

155

24

20

31

27

17

June

143

29

22

19

23

16

July

153

12

21

35

23

18

August

117

17

25

18

14

21

September

137

20

28

22

15

19

October

147

25

29

19

15

17

November

114

16

21

20

8

18

December

115

22

24

20

14

13

2012 9 22 27 20 22 25 30 13 17 18 13 14

2013 12 18 5 17 14 9 14 9 16 24 18 8

Total # Collisions

1620

263

287

284

229

159

230

164

Note: Columns may not sum to “total # collisions” because there were four reported collisions with missing data on year or month.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 107 of 126
Page 107 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Division of Assignment for Collisions 2007-2013

Division

N

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Academy CIB Crime Lab Fleet Homicide ISB K9 Narc PIB SCID Sex Crimes SOD Superintendent Technology Traffic

149

9.2

177

10.9

100

6.2

115

7.1

141

8.7

132

8.1

96

5.9

157

9.7

16

1.0

13

0.8

12

0.7

13

0.8

40

2.5

24

1.5

8

0.5

21

1.3

39

2.4

35

2.2

8

0.5

76

4.7

17

1.0

9

0.6

63

3.9

Note: Entries include the total number of collisions in the respective division between 2007 and 2013 (N). The percentages represent the percent of all department collisions that occurred in the respective division between 2007 and 2013 (%). Division of assignments that represented at least 0.5% of all collisions were included in this table. Accordingly, percentages do not sum to 100%.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 108 of 126 Page 108 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 109 of 126
Page 109 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Divisions of Assignment with Most Collisions by Year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Division

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Homicide PIB SCID SOD Traffic

18

25

17

32

18

23

16

6.8

8.7

6.0

14.0

11.3

10.0

9.8

32

30

25

24

19

29

17

12.2

10.5

8.8

10.5

11.9

12.6

10.4

18

23

23

7

2

17

10

6.8

8.0

8.1

3.1

1.3

7.4

6.1

25

14

26

10

10

17

13

9.5

4.9

9.2

4.4

6.3

7.4

7.9

17

21

22

27

21

21

12

6.5

7.3

7.7

11.8

13.2

9.1

7.3

21

24

22

23

17

16

9

8.0

8.4

7.7

10.0

10.7

7.0

5.5

15

13

15

16

16

9

12

5.7

4.5

5.3

7.0

10.1

3.9

7.3

21

28

35

19

14

23

15

8.0

9.8

12.3

8.3

8.8

10.0

9.1

4

4

6

8

3

6

9

1.5

1.4

2.1

3.5

1.9

2.6

5.5

8

5

4

7

4

5

6

3.0

1.7

1.4

3.1

2.5

2.2

3.7

8

6

5

2

7

6

1

3.0

2.1

1.8

0.9

4.4

2.6

0.6

8

18

11

14

3

9

13

3.0

6.3

3.9

6.1

1.9

3.9

7.9

14

11

18

9

1

5

5

5.3

3.8

6.3

3.9

0.6

2.2

3.0

Note: Entries include the total number of collisions in the respective division by year (N). The percentages represent the percent of all department collisions during a given year that occurred in the respective division (%).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 110 of 126
Page 110 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Collision Characteristics 2007 through 2013

N

Officer Characteristics

Age Years on the job

1511 1511

Collision Characteristics

Day of week: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Platoon shift: 1 2 3

Driving code: 1 2 3 Parked RP

Officer injury:

:

None

Minor

Moderate

Damage scale: None Light Moderate Heavy

Weather conditions: Good Wet Rain

Officer charged: Charged No charge

1614 255 235 219 244 266 222 173
1590 820 534 236
1554 1469
65 2 5 8
1582 1293 252
37
1617 3 989 408 217
1615 1556
6 53
1618 575 1043

Average or percent Minimum Maximum

38.24 11.45

21

82

1

53

---

---

---

15.8

14.6

13.6

15.1

16.5

13.8

10.7

---

---

---

51.2

33.6

14.8

---

---

---

94.5

4.2

0.1

0.3

0.5

---

---

---

81.7

15.9

2.3

---

---

0.2

61.0

25.2

13.4

---

---

---

96.0

0.4

3.3

---

---

---

35.5

64.4

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 111 of 126
Page 111 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Reprimand characteristics
Driving school: Yes No
Penalty: 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 8 days 10 days 12 days 13 days 15 days 20 days 25 days 30 days 45 days A1 A2 A3 Letter of reprimand
Number of days from accident date to board date

N

Average or percent Minimum Maximum

405

---

---

---

382

94.3

23

5.7

423

---

---

---

78

18.4

23

5.4

36

8.5

2

0.5

33

7.8

1

0.2

1

0.2

6

1.4

10

2.4

1

0.2

1

0.2

9

2.1

3

0.7

1

0.2

1

0.2

1

0.2

25

5.9

2

0.5

6

1.4

183

43.3

424

196.81

36

533

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 112 of 126
Page 112 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Frequency of Collisions by Division of Assignment (1 through 8) for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

No Charge

N

%

N

%

Division of Assignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

49

32.9

100

67.1

68

38.4

109

61.6

37

37.0

63

63.0

42

36.8

72

63.2

62

44.0

79

56.0

62

47.0

70

53.0

41

42.7

55

57.3

56

35.7

101

64.3

Note: Percentages represent the percent of total collisions for the category (i.e., charge or no charge) in divisions 18 that occurred in the respective division.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 113 of 126
Page 113 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Frequency of Collisions by Year for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

99

37.8

98

34.1

107

37.7

84

36.7

62

39.0

74

32.2

51

31.1

No Charge

N

%

163

62.2

189

65.9

177

62.3

145

63.3

96

61.0

156

67.8

113

68.9

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 114 of 126
Page 114 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Frequency of Collisions by Platoon Shift for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Platoon shift 1 2 3

269

32.8

209

39.1

95

40.3

No Charge

N

%

551

67.2

323

60.7

141

59.7

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 115 of 126
Page 115 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Frequency of Collisions by Driving Code for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Driving code 1 2 3 Parked RP

526

35.9

41

63.1

1

50.0

0

0.0

4

50.0

No Charge

N

%

941

64.1

24

36.9

1

50.0

5

100.0

4

50.0

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 116 of 126
Page 116 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Frequency of Collisions by Injury for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Extent of injury None Minor Moderate

495

38.3

66

26.2

13

35.1

No Charge

N

%

796

61.7

186

73.8

24

64.9

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 117 of 126
Page 117 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 10. Frequency of Collisions by Damage Scale for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Damage scale None Light Moderate Heavy

2

66.7

329

33.3

159

39.1

84

38.7

No Charge

N

%

1

33.3

659

66.7

248

60.9

133

61.3

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 118 of 126
Page 118 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 11. Frequency of Collisions by Weather Conditions for Charge vs. No Charge

Charge

N

%

Weather conditions Good Wet Rain

551

35.5

2

33.3

20

37.8

No Charge

N

%

1003

64.5

4

66.7

33

62.2

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 119 of 126
Page 119 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Collision Characteristics for Charge vs. No Charge by Officer Characteristics

Charge

Average

Officer age

36.71

Years on job

9.50

No Charge Average
39.17 12.63

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 120 of 126
Page 120 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 13. Logistic regression equation for the effects of officer and collision characteristics on charge decision

Variables

Charge (= yes)a

Division b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Year c 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

b (SE)
0.024 (0.218) 0.173 (0.199) 0.149 (0.247) 0.164 (0.233) 0.469 (0.211)* 0.406 (0.214)† 0.432 (0.245)† 0.083 (0.209)
0.350 (0.222) 0.199 (0.220) 0.236 (0.218) 0.171 (0.228) 0.262 (0.246) 0.170 (0.228)

Odds Ratio
--------1.598 1.501 1.541 ---
-------------

Driver’s age (continuous)

0.007 (0.009)

---

Driver’s years on job (continuous)
Platoon d 2 3
Emergency driving (yes = 1) e
Injury (yes = 1) f
Damage (yes = 1) g
Bad weather (yes = 1) h

-0.035 (0.010)**
0.116 (0.126) 0.167 (0.166) 0.886 (0.274)** -0.790 (0.157)** 0.273 (0.118)* -0.024 (0.292)

0.965
----2.424 0.454 1.314 ---

Intercept

Nagelkerke R² = Ȥð

-0.830 (0.355)*

---
0.081 92.273**

**p ‫ ޒ‬0.01; *p ‫ ޒ‬0.05; †p ‫ ޒ‬0.10. a Logistic regression equation (reference category is “no charge”). b Each variable is dummy coded and reference category is all other divisions besides 1 through 8. c Each variable is dummy coded and reference category is 2013. d Each variable is dummy coded and reference category is Platoon 1. e Variable is dummy coded so that 1 indicates the officer was engaged in emergency driving (DRIVINGCODE was
original variable). The reference category is any other type of driving.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 121 of 126 Page 121 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
f Variable is dummy coded (1= some type of injury sustained) and reference category is “no injury.” g Variable is dummy coded (1= some type of damage sustained) and reference category is “no damage.” g Variable is dummy coded (1= wet or rain weather conditions) and reference category is “good weather.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 122 of 126
Page 122 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. Appendix IV: NOPD Compliance Bureau Job Announcement
NOPD Compliance Manager Entrance Salary $65,000.00 - $75,000.00 annually plus benefits
Description Background The City of New Orleans and the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) have entered into a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice. Under the terms of this agreement, NOPD must implement a series of reforms outlined in the Consent Decree, document its compliance with these requirements, and have this compliance accepted and certified by the U.S. District Court. Altogether, the Consent Decree is composed of more than 490 paragraphs that detail required reforms on a wide range of subjects. The firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP has been selected to monitor the implementation of this agreement, and will provide regular updates to the Court and to the public about NOPD’s progress in implementing the required reforms.
In December 2013, NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas created the Compliance Bureau to monitor and verify the Department’s compliance with Consent Decree requirements and to work in close partnership with the Sheppard Mullin monitoring team. The Compliance Bureau is led by Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg and incorporates NOPD’s Policy Standards, Training Standards, Compliance Standards, Performance Standards, and Information Systems Sections. NOPD anticipates hiring a total of five Compliance Managers under this announcement to oversee and document its progress in implementing Consent Decree-mandated reforms. Compliance Managers are expected to independently manage significant portfolios and will report to Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg.
Minimum Qualifications x Graduate degree in law, criminal justice, business, public policy, or related field. x Advanced certification in statistical analysis, auditing or other relevant area of concentration desired. x Demonstrated experience writing for both public and internal consumption. x Experience in data analysis, project management, and/or auditing. x Track record of delivering results in a high-pressure environment with multiple workstreams. x Direct experience working with senior and mid-level leaders in government and/or the private sector. x Understanding of the mechanics of city government and/or criminal justice agencies. x Experience working in a law enforcement environment desired.
Duties and Responsibilities
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 123 of 126 Page 123 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
x Managing and maintaining strong relationships with stakeholders both within and outside of NOPD, including officers, supervisors, senior City officials, members of the Sheppard Mullin team, and community leaders.
x Developing clear and appropriate compliance plans to deliver results on all priority areas the Manager is responsible for.
x Achieving defined targets by regularly monitoring performance on multiple simultaneous projects and resolving issues when needed.
x Provide analysis and advice to key stakeholders, including Deputy Superintendent of Compliance, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Mayor of Public Safety, and Mayor.
x Develop policy recommendations and oversee policy implementation. x Creating comprehensive work plans and task schedules that identify all actions,
resources, and deliverables required to achieve the desired results. x Work independently with minimal supervision. Please direct questions and resumes to Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg at jaginsberg@nola.gov.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 124 of 126
Page 124 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVI. Appendix V: NOPD Canine Unit Deployment Analysis

Item # A 18095 13 B 00520 13 B 14606 13 B 16143 13 B 23329 13 C 03566 13 F 00786 13 F 24035 13 F 32742 13 G 12734 13 G 08628 13 H 1611-13 H 26041 13 H 36535 13 H 39603 13 H 40307 13 I 14432 13 J 15739 13 J 20990 13 J 23283 13 J 34548 13 J 39304 13 K 20531 13 G 24216 13 L 11507 13 L 26957 13 L 33804 13 A 05884 14 A 05884 14 A 26898 14 A 32056 14 A 37753 14 B 33631 14 C 11745 14

Date 1/14/13 2/1/13 2/10/13 2/11/13 2/17/13 3/3/13 6/1/13 6/18/13 6/24/13 7/10/13 7/16/13 8/12/13 8/19/13 8/27/13 8/29/13 8/29/13 9/11/13 10/12/13 10/15/13 10/17/13 10/25/13 10/28/13 11/15/13 12/5/13 12/9/13 12/20/13 12/25/13 1/5/14 1/5/14 1/21/14 1/25/14 1/30/14 2/26/14 3/9/14

Approving Supervisor Unit
K9 K9 5th
5th SOD SOD 3rd SOD 7th SOD SOD K9 SOD K9 K9 5th SOD K9 SOD 5th

Warning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Offense Agg Assault Residential Burglary Armed Robbery Armed Robbery Illegal Carrying Stolen Auto Agg Assault Warrant -ProVi Stolen Auto Armed Carjacking Illegal Carrying Illegal Carrying Stolen Auto Rape Illegal Carrying Illegal Carrying Stolen Auto Illegal Carrying Illegal Carrying Armed Robbery Armed Robbery Agg Batt of PO Stolen Auto Murder Murder Stolen Auto Carjacking Agg Assault Agg Assault Illegal Carrying Illegal Carrying Agg Assault Stolen Auto Illegal Carrying

Arrest Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Weapon Yes No No No No No Unk No No No Yes Unk No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Unk No No Unk Yes No Yes

On/Off FIT Bite Lead Notified

Yes On

Unk

Yes On

Unk

No On

No On

No On

No On

Yes On

Unk

No On

No On

No On

Yes On

Unk

No On

No On

No On

No On

No On

No On

Yes Off

Yes

No On

No On

No On

Yes On

Yes

No On

Yes On/Off Yes

No On

No On

No On

Yes On/Off Yes

Yes On/Off Yes

No On

Yes

Yes On

Yes

Yes On/Off Yes

No On

Yes On

Yes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 125 of 126
Page 125 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Item # C 24010 14 C 34731 14 C 38775 14

Date 3/19/14 3/27/14 3/30/14

Approving Supervisor Unit
SOD
K9
1st

Warning Yes Yes Yes

Offense Illegal Carrying Auto Burglary Armed Robbery

Arrest Yes Yes Yes

Weapon Unk No Yes

On/Off FIT Bite Lead Notified

No On

No On

Yes On

Yes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 356-1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 126 of 126
Page 126 of 126 May 27, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVII. Appendix VI: Force Review Data

Item # Force # Date

Resistance Encountered Force Description

Occurred

K-33197-13 2013-387 11/24/2013 Verbally threatened Displayed, Pointed,

officer

Painted ECW

L-26957-13 2013-0401 12/20/2013 Fled stolen vehicle

K9 Deployment no

apprehension

A-05182-14 2014-002 1/5/2014 Actively resisted cuffing Forcible cuffing after

arrestee fell to the

ground

A-05310-14 2014-0009 1/5/2014 Active resistance

Taser Application

Force Level 1

Unit Investigator Finding File Complete

Comment

2nd Justified

Yes Taser report in fileSgt. Viewed the Taser Video

1

K9 Justified

Yes

1

4th Justified

Yes

2

8th Justified

Yes Taser report in fileSgt. Viewed the Taser Video

A-33338-14 2014-0021 1/27/2014 Active resistance

Forcible take down

2

6th Justified

Yes

A-39049-14 2014-0024 1/31/2014 Assaulted Officer &

Forcible take down and 2

6th Justified

Yes

Active resistance

cuffing

B-27914-14 2014-0033 2/22/2014 Officer was responding Drew weapon but did 1

4th Justified

Yes

to a call at a location not point

known to be occupied be

armed persons.

B-06628-14 2014-0035 2/6/2014 Active resistance

Forcible take down and 2

6th Justified

Yes

cuffing

B-31652-14 2014-0039 2/24/2014 Active resistance

Forcible take down

2

8th Justified

Yes

C-01891-14 2014-0048 3/2/2014 Woman was forcing her Use arm against a wall to 1

8th Justified

Yes

attention on a man who prevent a woman from

did not want her

following a man who did

attention

not want her to follow

him. No other force

used. No arrest made.

The sergeant's report fails to document that he went to the scene and observed the arrestee.
CD does not require investigation of drawing a weapon if the officer does not point it at the subject.

C-02443-14 2014-0054 3/2/2014 Active resistance

Forcible cuffing

1

5th Justified

C-15770-14 2014-0063 3/12/2014 Fleeing traffic stop for outstanding warrant.

D-03815-14 2014-0073 4/3/2014

Officer was responding to call of a man with a gun.

Discharged Taser at

2

fleeing subject. Subject

escaped.

Pointed Weapon

1

7th Justified 1st Justified

Yes

The investigating sergeant

was involved in the use of

force event. He assisted the

officer in the cuffing.

Yes Taser report in file

Yes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:

VERSUS

:

: CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-01924
SECTION E JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN
DIVISION 2 MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the

City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the

New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) since the entry of the Consent Decree, the City’s

assessment of its progress, plans to correct any issues, and to respond to any concerns that have

been raised by the Consent Decree Monitor.

Introduction

In May 2010, at the invitation of Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu, the United States

Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) began investigating an alleged pattern of civil rights

violations and other misconduct by the New Orleans Police Department (the “NOPD”; the

“Department”). The DOJ launched its investigation under the auspices of the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141; the anti-discrimination

provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 41 U.S.C. § 3789d; and

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 200d.

On March 16, 2011, the DOJ issued a written report alleging unconstitutional conduct by

the NOPD and describing the DOJ’s concerns about various NOPD policies and procedures.

The City of New Orleans (the “City”) and the NOPD cooperated fully in the DOJ’s investigation,

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 17
and the parties proceeded to negotiate a document, known as the Consent Decree, to assist in implementing a series of reforms within the NOPD.
While negotiations were ongoing, the DOJ provided the City with extensive recommendations to reform the NOPD’s paid detail system in May 15, 2011. The City had already undertaken efforts to reform the detail system. In addition, since Mayor Landrieu took office in May 2010, the NOPD has undertaken other major reform initiatives including restructuring of the Public Integrity Bureau; placing new leadership in major investigative sections; implementing key domestic violence initiatives; increasing staffing in the homicide section; providing specially developed training to key investigative sections; acquiring and implementing new equipment and computer technology to increase the efficiency of the NOPD; auditing, cataloging, and improving storage of evidence; improving community outreach; increasing hiring standards; and, analyzing and revising NOPD policies in accordance with “best practice” standards.
On July 24, 2012, the parties signed the Consent Decree, which was the nation’s most expansive Consent Decree. The Consent Decree contains a broad array of separate tasks and goals detailed in more than 490 paragraphs and 110 pages; it reflects the DOJ, the City, and NOPD’s shared commitment to effective, constitutional, and professional law enforcement. The Court approved and entered the Consent Decree on January 11, 2013.
On August 9, 2013, the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP was appointed, by order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Court”), to establish the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (the “Monitor”). The Monitor is tasked with conducting periodic reviews, audits, and assessments of the NOPD’s progress to assess and report on implementation of the Consent Decree’s provisions. The Monitor issued its
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 17
First Quarterly Report on November 29, 2013. The Monitor issued its Second Quarterly Report on May 28, 2014.
Paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree requires the City to file a Status Report that delineates steps taken by the NOPD to implement the Consent Decree’s reforms; the City’s assessment of the status of this progress; plans to correct any problems; and the City’s response to concerns raised in the Monitor’s Quarterly Report. This document is the City’s initial Status Report, covering the reporting period from August 9, 2013 to July 2, 2014.
The Consent Decree is a broad, extensive blueprint for positive change, and it encompasses sweeping, department-wide reforms that understandably may require years to accomplish fully. Nonetheless, the NOPD has made significant progress in the relatively short period of time that has passed since the agreement was entered by the Court. The NOPD is addressing every aspect of the Consent Decree through assessment, planning, and implementation. Although the Department has not yet demonstrated compliance with every requirement, some major goals have been achieved already and progress on other goals is ongoing. Many of the mandated reforms identified by the Monitor cannot presently be demonstrated or documented, as metrics for their accomplishment have not been established or cannot be measured except through the collection and analysis of data over time. In addition, consistent with their obligations under paragraph 488 of the Consent Decree, the City and the NOPD have addressed various practical, legal, logistical, and financial challenges, which caused delays that were beyond their control. Although the City intends to and will comply with every aspect of the Consent Decree, this Status Report is intended to highlight key aspects of the NOPD’s progress and provide an overview of significant reforms that have been implemented.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 17
Compliance Bureau Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree requires the City and the NOPD to create a “Consent Decree Implementation Unit.” This unit serves as a liaison among the Court, the City, and Monitor, coordinating compliance and implementation actions and facilitating the sharing of data, documents, materials and access among the various personnel and parties. In December 2013, NOPD Superintendent Ronal W. Serpas, Ph.D. created a bureau within the police department to serve as this inter-disciplinary unit. The Compliance Bureau incorporates several other units with functions closely related to implementation of the Consent Decree, including NOPD’s Policy Standards, Training Standards, Compliance Standards, Performance Standards, and Information Systems sections. The NOPD took the many necessary steps with the Civil Service Commission to hire Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg to lead the Compliance Bureau in December 2013. The NOPD then revamped its infrastructure and shifted personnel to establish Compliance Bureau offices on the fifth floor of the NOPD’s headquarters. Within the Compliance Bureau, a Consent Decree implementation team comprises a staff of five Compliance Managers. Following the creation of the bureau, the City funded, created, and advertised the Compliance Manager positions in March and April 2014. The City and the NOPD screened and interviewed applicants, hiring all five Compliance Managers and one Office Manager, in May and June 2014. As a result, the Compliance Bureau is fully staffed. The Compliance Managers and Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg are civilian personnel, but police Commander Chris Lea was appointed to oversee the bureau’s operations under Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg’s direction. Deputy Superintendent Ginsberg apportioned Consent Decree responsibilities among the Compliance Managers, each of whom will independently handle a significant portfolio of
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 5 of 17
targeted goals. The Compliance Bureau is still establishing specific metrics but anticipates measuring compliance through timely delivery of projects, implementation of Consent Decree requirements, and determination of compliance with NOPD policy as well as verification of Consent Decree compliance through the federal Monitor.
In the past several weeks, the Compliance Managers have reviewed and analyzed the Consent Decree’s components and established a framework for implementation, including a timeline of the Consent Decree’s mandated deadlines and strategies for fulfillment. The Compliance Managers have met individually with key personnel within the NOPD as well as with members of the Monitoring team. In response to concerns raised by the Monitor regarding the process for policy revisions, the Compliance Bureau and NOPD personnel have engaged the Monitor to create a policy development and approval process to completely revamp NOPD policy and procedures. The Compliance Managers also have attended public meetings held by the Monitor in New Orleans public libraries to inform the community about the implementation process.
The NOPD has taken a proactive approach to implementation of the Consent Decree by initiating various reforms before the Compliance Bureau was established and staffed. However, the recent advent of a fully functioning, operational Compliance Bureau will expedite the process of reforms, and focus Consent Decree implementation, to a significant degree. The City regards the creation and on-boarding of the Compliance Bureau within the NOPD as a significant success and a major step toward implementation of the Consent Decree. However, the Consent Decree establishes aggressive timelines for completion of sweeping, department-wide reforms, The City, NOPD and Compliance Bureau are committed to meeting these challenges head-on.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 6 of 17
Developing New Policing Policies Before establishing its Compliance Bureau, and indeed, before the Consent Decree was entered by the Court, the NOPD entered into an agreement with a well-known, national vendor, Lexipol, LLC, to develop a policy manual. This agreement was entered in to over one year prior to the effective date of the Consent Decree and over eighteen months prior to the Court’s appointment of a Monitor. In revamping its policy manual, the NOPD formed an Executive Development Committee (“EDC”) and an Administrative Policy Review Committee (“PRC”) to complete development of the policies. The City Attorney’s Office also provided representation and assistance to NOPD throughout this process. Once the development and review process was complete, the draft document was sent to Superintendent Serpas for his review and signature. The Court and the DOJ were fully informed of this ongoing process by at least September 21, 2102. [Rec. Doc. 132-35]. The first revised policy was issued in July 2012, and the last was completed in June 2013. Ultimately, the final updated manual was made available to all NOPD officers via the department’s intranet on June 30, 2013. In its First Quarterly Report, the Monitor determined that NOPD failed to comply with a Consent Decree requirement that the NOPD submit certain new and revised policies, procedures and manuals to the Monitor and DOJ “for review and comment prior to publication and implementation.” See Paragraph 21. The Monitor determined that NOPD “prematurely implemented revised policies in advance of review” by the DOJ and Monitor. See First Quarterly Report. However, this criticism fails to take into account the date of entry of the Consent Decree by the Court (January 11, 2013) and the hiring of the Monitor (August 9, 2013) in light of NOPD’s immediate need for revised policies after receiving the DOJ’s findings letter on March 16, 2011. Although NOPD developed and implemented a working draft of its revised
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 7 of 17

policies, it continues to further revise and submit its revised policies to the Monitor and DOJ for

review.

In response to concerns raised by the Monitor, the NOPD has transformed its policy

drafting, review, and approval process. The new process is a collaborative approach that directly

engages multiple NOPD subject matter experts in the initial drafting of policies and provides a

greater role for both the Monitor’s team and the DOJ’s Special Litigation Section in the policy

review and approval process. Simultaneously, the NOPD has created a policy revision strategy

that will provide all policies covering specified provisions to the Monitor for review by July 21,

2014. A significant portion of NOPD policy revisions have been submitted to the Monitor

already. The NOPD will notify the Monitor and the Court if any revision to this schedule as

necessary. The following key policies, and their listed components, have been, or will be,

provided to the Monitor on or by the specified date.

● Use of Force

March 31-June 3, 2014

Firearms; Ammunition; Vehicle Pursuits; Canines;1 Use of Force;2 Weapons

Training/Requalification; Scenario Based Weapon Safety Training Protocol; Use of

Force Review Board; Handcuffing and Restraints; Control Devices and Techniques;

Force Investigation Team/Officer Involved Shooting; Crisis Response Unit/SWAT;

Prisoner Transportation.

● Misconduct

June 20, 2014

Self Identification/Building Security; Transfers/Filling Vacancies/Selection process for

Specialized Units; Grievances: Employee Non-Discriminatory Complaints; Misconduct

1 These policies were submitted to the Monitor on March 31, 2014. 2 This policy was submitted on May 7, 2014.
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 8 of 17

Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations; Disciplinary Hearings/Penalties; Negotiated

Settlements; Mediation Settlement.

● Stop, Search, and Seizure July 7, 2014 Handcuffing and Restraints, Canines;3 Search and Seizure; Custody Searches; Temporary

Custody of Juveniles; Child Dependent Adult Safety; Mental Illness Civil Commitments;

Arrests; Summons; Arrest Warrant/Wanted Persons; Foot Pursuits; Traffic Function and

Responsibility; Traffic Stops and Traffic Checkpoints; Impoundment of Motor Vehicles

Involved in Criminal Activity; Driving While Intoxicated and Impaired Driving Evidence

Collection; Investigation and Prosecution.

● Field Training

July 7, 2014

● Bias-Free Policing

July 21, 2014

Officer Response Calls; Alternative Police Response; Victim and Witness Assistance;

Hate Crimes; Complaint Signals Changing of Item Signals or Dispositions; Limited

English Proficiency Services; Hearing Impaired/Disabled Communications;

Discriminatory Policing/Bias Based Profiling; LGBT Community; Immigration

Violations; Contacts, Detentions and Photographing Detainees; Gang Violence Reduction

Strategy; Homeless/Homeless Shelters; Traffic Stops and Traffic Checkpoints.

Training and Personnel Development

The NOPD has developed a strategic Recruitment Plan in conjunction with the Civil

Service Commission that establishes clear goals and objectives to attract high-quality applicants,

pursuant to paragraph 234 of the Consent Decree. The NOPD has created a new Web site,

www.joinnopd.org. The NOPD is hosting more job fairs and recruiting events, conducting

“meet and greets” at community and civic group functions, and churches. The Department is

3 These policies were submitted previously with the Use of Force policies.

8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 9 of 17
advertising and engaging in outreach to invite a diverse, talented pool of applicants to seek employment with the NOPD. The Department has developed a standardized scoring system for use by interview panelists. In addition, the Department is revising its recruitment policy to include the current protocol for assigning officers to the Recruitment Unit.
Pursuant to paragraph 247 of the Consent Decree, the NOPD possesses a full-time, department-wide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, Captain Ernest Demma. Further, each District and central organization unit has a single training coordinator to coordinate and document training. The Training Liaison is required to establish and maintain communications with each District training coordinator to ensure all officers complete training as required and that documentation of training is provided to the Training Division. Captain Demma has done so, and those records are kept on file at the Training Academy. In its Second Quarterly Report, the Monitor concludes that NOPD has demonstrated only partial compliance with this requirement because no roll-call training has been documented. NOPD possesses documentation on all District Roll Call Line-Ups. Roll Calls are conducted within each District at each shift change and the documentation regarding the Roll Call Line-Ups is kept at each District.
The NOPD is committed to reforming its training program to ensure adequate training for its officers. It has developed new curricula, re-organized its training staff, revised promotional criteria, and established a schedule for delivering all training. Other significant advances the NOPD has made in the area of Training and Personnel Development include:
● Online training. The NOPD contracted with a vendor, Lexipol, LLC, to facilitate online training, which began in April 2013. The vendor had significant programmatic dysfunctions that temporarily interrupted the provision of training services, which were
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 10 of 17
back online as of January 2014. Under Paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree, NOPD is required to provide an opportunity for each officer and employee to learn about the Consent Decree and their relevant responsibilities under the agreement. Online Consent Decree training is scheduled to be completed by early July 2014. All commissioned officers and recruits are undergoing the online training, and the Training Liaison records all officers and recruits who have completed the training modules. The Liaison sends out weekly e-mail blasts containing a list of officers and recruits who have not completed training and must do so within one week of notice. If one week has passed and certain officers and/or recruits have not completed the training, the Liaison e-mails each District with a list of names of those individuals who have not completed training. The District commander then ensures compliance by ordering completion of the online training modules and reports this information back to the Training Liaison, who records this information. ● Curriculum revision. The NOPD has boosted its POST training requirement, adding 919 training hours compared to the required 835. All lesson plans and curricula are documented and available for review in paper form at the NOPD Training Academy facility. The NOPD is in the process of scanning lessons plans to make them available in electronic format. ● New training protocols. A new detective training protocol was completed in June 2014 and the first training session will begin July 8, 2014. A new sergeants’ field training class, comprising 200 hours, is completed. ● Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (“KSA”) forms. As of June 2014, various KSAs for detectives have been sent out and posted department-wide. In mid-July 2014, KSAs for
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 11 of 17
field training officers are expected to be sent out, with the first class for those officers beginning in August 2014. Other KSAs, including Homicide and Firearms Trainer, have been sent out departmentally in June 2014. ● Field Training Manual revision. The manual’s revision is ongoing. However, procedures cannot be developed and implemented until the Monitor has approved the submitted policies for review. ● Curriculum Director. A viable candidate for the position was offered the job but declined in June 2014. The position has been re-advertised, and a new round of applicants are expected to be screened and interviewed in July and August 2014. ● Performance Evaluation Improvement Plan. Development of the Performance and Evaluation Plan is underway. The City has asked the Civil Service Commission to change its rules for all departments regarding performance, evaluations, and performance, and the Commission intends to vote on those rule changes in July 2014. However, NOPD has minimal influence on the process because it is a City initiative that impacts all City government departments. If those rule changes are approved, the NOPD can make changes to its performance evaluation process that will comply with the Consent Decree. ● Online Reporting For Training Attendance. As stated above, this data is recorded and transmitted to District Commanders, who then relay the information to their officers.
Enhancing Accountability and Managing Risk The NOPD aims to enhance individual accountability and enable the department to better manage risk within the NOPD. Paragraph 317 of the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to create a plan for the implementation of an Early Warning System (“EWS”) that will include the hiring of an information technology specialist to facilitate the EWS development. The NOPD
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 12 of 17
created an EWS implementation plan that it has submitted it to the Monitor; the plan calls for the release of a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) as of December 31, 2013, with EWS policies to be drafted in the first quarter of 2014 and a vendor selected in the second quarter of 2014. The NOPD issued an RFP for the procurement of an EWS on March 11, 2014, with all bids due by May 8, 2014. A selection committee met in early June for vendor presentations, and the committee is reviewing two proposals for the finalists. The NOPD anticipates that a bid will be awarded imminently. Consequently, the NOPD is proceeding in accord and on track with its EWS implementation plan.
Under paragraph 329 of the Consent Decree, the NOPD agreed to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is working properly. The NOPD has drafted policies, procedures and protocols that require frequent testing, inspection, and maintenance checks on the aforementioned equipment. The NOPD is in the process of implementing a testing schedule, which will include routine maintenance checks of all department vehicles.
Under paragraph 425 of the Consent Decree, the City agreed to request that the Civil Service Commission post, online, its full decisions related to NOPD discipline in a timely manner. The City has made the request, and the Civil Service Commission began posting the findings of officer disciplinary hearings as of April 11, 2013. Other significant advances the NOPD has made in the areas of Accountability and Risk Assessment include:
● Force Investigation Team. The NOPD has established a Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) as a unit within its Public Integrity Bureau. The FIT is commanded by a lieutenant and staffed by three sergeants and a detective. Among other things, the FIT investigates all serious Use of Force events, Use of Force events indicating apparent criminal conduct by an officer,
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 13 of 17
pursuant to paragraph 97 of the Consent Decree. In its Second Quarterly Report, the Monitor commended the FIT investigators’ knowledge, skill, and abilities, as well as their training and the quality of their investigations.
● On-body Cameras. Taser International was selected to provide approximately 400 body-worn cameras for use by NOPD uniformed field officers. The NOPD developed relevant policies and deployed on-body cameras to officers in the field in April 2014.
Reforming Secondary Employment The NOPD has centralized and formalized its paid detail system with the establishment of the Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”). The City created the OPSE in May 2012 to control and manage Secondary Employments, and the OPSE currently has nine full-time civilian staff members. The City and the NOPD developed OPSE policies, which the Monitor approved in December 2013. Those policies were promulgated to all NOPD officers, who were instructed to register for work details with the OPSE. The OPSE assumed detail management responsibilities in August 2013 and became fully operational in January 2014. As of June 19, 2014, the OPSE has filled approximately 4600 jobs, paid approximately $873,000 to officers, enrolled 270 customers, and registered 742 NOPD officers into the OPSE system. As the Monitor noted in its Second Quarterly Report, the NOPD has either complied with or is moving toward compliance with the Consent Decree’s chief Secondary Employment requirements, i.e. paragraphs 332 to 374. The Coordinating Office maintains a roster of NOPD employees registered with OPSE who are interested in working off-duty details. Once registered with OPSE, officers gain access to a list of secondary employment opportunities. The Coordinating Office is working toward making this list of opportunities available on an NOPD employee website or database to provide broader access.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 14 of 17
The OPSE will continue to work closely with the Monitoring team to ensure progress toward full compliance. The OPSE is currently providing fair and equitable Secondary Employment opportunities to all NOPD employees, filling vacancies pursuant to written, consistently applied criteria. The results of this work will be published in annual report, which the OPSE is preparing in accordance with the Consent Decree.
Community Engagement and Supportive Services The NOPD is committed to reforming its community outreach efforts, improving assistance to special victims, and enhancing support to individuals with special needs. The department is in the process of planning its outreach to LEP individuals. The NOPD has created a Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”), whose members meet monthly. The SART program is developing an operational agreement in collaboration with the district attorney, community service providers and other stakeholders, meeting the essence of NOPD’s obligation under paragraph 210 of the Consent Decree. The SART is drafting an agreement to formally establish its existence and purpose to fully comply with this paragraph. The Monitor, the DOJ, the Court, and the NOPD collaboratively developed three surveys designed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree by assessing community experiences with, and perception of, NOPD and public safety. The Police Survey, Detainee Survey, and Community Survey forms are completed, and the Monitor is coordinating with residents and other stakeholders to conduct interviews and collect the requisite data. Other significant advances the NOPD has made in the area of Community Engagement and Supportive Services include:
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 15 of 17
 NOPD has hired a new employee in Public Affairs who is assigned to increasing recruitment in the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) community and assisting in the development of a language assistance plan.
 NOPD has received very positive feedback from community members and advocacy groups for deploying ELSA mobile translation devices that allow for on-site translation. These devices have also proven effective in helping detectives quick obtain important information during investigations.
 NOPD is working with the Congress of Day Laborers organization to review NOPD’s immigration policy in an effort to address concerns over civil versus criminal enforcement actions conducted by ICE.
 Employee Assistance and Counseling. The NOPD is reviewing and expanding the function of its Employee Relations Unit, which provides assistance to officers who are injured on the job and assists the families of officers who are killed in the line of duty. The City employs a contractual psychiatrist who handles fitness for duty issues relative to officer-involved shootings, and the NOPD recently hired an additional psychologist to assist in this area. The City offers an EmployeeAssistance Program to all City employees through its health care provider, and the EAP allows employees as many as 20 counseling sessions annually with their choice of physician in a confidential environment.
The City and NOPD are committed to continuing its reforms to achieve full compliance with all terms of the Consent Decree.
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 16 of 17
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams CHRISTY HAROWSKI (LSB #30712) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHERRELL R. SIMMS, 28227 SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS (LSB#28809) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 shrwilliams@nola.gov Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 2nd of July, 2014 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams Sharonda R. Williams
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 376 Filed 07/02/14 Page 17 of 17

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 69
New Orleans Consent Decree Monitor Third Quarterly Report of 2014 December 19, 2014
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 69

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
Third Quarterly Report for 2014 Covering
July 1, 2014 – September 30, 2014
December 19, 2014

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS QUARTER
• Reviewed and worked with NOPD to revise policies and procedures
• Monitored Academy training
• Reviewed individual uses of force by NOPD officers
• Reviewed PIB’s process for handling citizen complaints involving racial profiling
• Monitored officer and supervisor disciplinary hearings
• Assessed fulfillment of NOPD supervisor responsibilities
• Audited the use and functionality of CEW, in-car, and Body Worn cameras
• Audited availability of citizen complaint forms in NOPD districts
WHAT WE FOUND
• NOPD’s Training Academy continues to suffer from serious deficiencies, however, recent leadership changes and other initiatives give the Monitoring Team hope things now will change
• Although improvements have not occurred as quickly as we would have liked, toward the end of the reporting quarter, NOPD’s policy drafting process improved and NOPD now is making progress toward compliance
• NOPD still has not met its Crisis Intervention Team obligations
• NOPD supervision and record keeping still are lacking in many areas
• Technology continues to hinder some of NOPD’s compliance efforts, including its efforts to deploy fully functional in-car cameras, but additional funding obtained from the City should held these efforts
NEXT QUARTER’S ACTIVITIES
• Continue closely monitoring uses of force, training, citizen complaints, misconduct investigations, and disciplinary hearings
• Continue closely monitoring the Training Academy, and expand monitoring to other components of NOPD’s training program
• Continue to work closely with NOPD on drafting Consent Decree compliant policies.
• Perform a more in-depth analysis of NOPD’s supervision in all areas of the Consent Decree
• Monitor NOPD’s progress in meeting its Crisis Intervention Team obligations
• Analyze the results of the police, detainee, and community survey conducted over the course of the prior two quarters

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 69 Page 3 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com I. Note
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
-Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 69 Page 4 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. Table of Contents

I.

Note........................................................................................................................................................... 3

II.

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 4

III. Glossary of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 7

IV. Introduction to Fourth Quarterly Report................................................................................... 9

V.

Summary of Monitoring Activities............................................................................................. 14

VI. POLICIES AND TRAINING.............................................................................................................. 15

VII. USE OF FORCE (CD 27-100) ......................................................................................................... 17

VIII. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CD 111-121)........................................................................ 18

IX.

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS.................................................................................................. 20

A. Interrogation Recordings (CD 164 and 165) ............................................................................ 20

B. Interrogation Case Files (CD 166)................................................................................................. 22

C. Interview Rooms and Functioning Equipment (CD 167)..................................................... 22

D. Qualified Interpreters (CD 168)..................................................................................................... 23

X.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS (CD 171 - 176) ........................................................................... 24

A. CD 171...................................................................................................................................................... 24

B. CD 172...................................................................................................................................................... 24

C. CD 173...................................................................................................................................................... 25

D. CD 174...................................................................................................................................................... 25

E. CD 175 and 176 .................................................................................................................................... 25

XI.

BIAS FREE POLICING (CD 177-194) ......................................................................................... 25

XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS (CD 195-222)................................................................ 26

XIII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CD 223-233) .......................................................................... 27

XIV. RECRUITMENT (CD 234-244) ..................................................................................................... 28

XV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING (CD 245-288) ..................................................... 30

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 30

B. Lesson Plans .......................................................................................................................................... 30

C. Outdated Materials.............................................................................................................................. 31

D. Academy Leadership .......................................................................................................................... 32

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 69 Page 5 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
E. Instructors and Instruction.............................................................................................................. 32 1. Ethics Training .............................................................................................................................. 32 2. Community Policing & Ethics Training................................................................................ 33 3. Driver and Vehicle Pursuit Training ..................................................................................... 33 4. Domestic Violence Training ..................................................................................................... 33 5. Crimes Classification Training ................................................................................................ 34 6. CEW Training................................................................................................................................. 35 7. Cultural Diversity and Sensitivity Training........................................................................ 35
XVI. SUPERVISION (CD 306-331) ........................................................................................................ 36 A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306-313) ............................................................................................ 36 1. CD 306 .............................................................................................................................................. 36 2. CD 307 .............................................................................................................................................. 38 3. CD 308 .............................................................................................................................................. 40 4. CD 309 .............................................................................................................................................. 40 5. CD 310 .............................................................................................................................................. 40 6. CD 311 .............................................................................................................................................. 41 7. CD 312 .............................................................................................................................................. 41 8. Paragraph 313 ............................................................................................................................... 42 B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training ................................................................................. 43 1. CD 314 .............................................................................................................................................. 43 2. CD 315 .............................................................................................................................................. 43 C. Early Warning System ....................................................................................................................... 43 1. CD 316 .............................................................................................................................................. 43 2. CD 317 .............................................................................................................................................. 44 D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities (CD 327-331)............................... 44 1. Introduction To Camera Audit ................................................................................................ 44 2. Camera Findings ........................................................................................................................... 47 3. Conclusion Regarding Cameras Generally.......................................................................... 55 4. AVL and In-Car Camera Functionality (CD 327) .............................................................. 56 5. Equipment Testing (CD 329) ................................................................................................... 58 6. Supervisory Responsibility (CD 330) ................................................................................... 59
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 6 of 69 Page 6 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. Handheld Recording Devices (CD 331) ............................................................................... 60 XVII. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT (CD 332 - 374) ......................................................................... 60 XVIII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION (CD
375-426).............................................................................................................................................. 62 A. Citizen Complaint Forms (CD 385 and 386) ............................................................................. 62 B. Complaint Forms in Multiple Languages (CD 387) ................................................................ 63 C. Camera Discipline................................................................................................................................ 63 XIX. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT (CD 427-443) .............................................................. 63 A. Availability of NOPD Audits and Reports (CD 427)................................................................ 63 B. Availability of Policies and Procedures On NOPD Web Site (CD 428) ............................ 64 XX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT (CD 444 – 492).................. 65 A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459) ................................................................................................... 65 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)......................................................... 65 C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)............................................................................. 65 XXI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 66 XXII. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix 2............................................................................................................................................................ 68 Appendix 3............................................................................................................................................................ 69
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 7 of 69
Page 7 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

III. Glossary of Acronyms

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CCMS” “CD” “CEW” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DMVAD” “DOJ” “DVU” “ECW” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Conducted Electrical Weapon (see also ECW) Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Digital Mobile Voice Audio Recording (in-car cameras) Department of Justice Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon (see also CEW) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 8 of 69
Page 8 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 9 of 69
Page 9 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IV. Introduction to Fourth Quarterly Report
This is the third Quarterly Report of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team for 2014, and the Team’s fourth Quarterly Report. This Report reflects the status of NOPD’s compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree from July 2014 through September 2014. In short, NOPD continues to make progress in some areas but not in others. Before setting out the various areas of progress (or, in some cases, lack thereof), it must be emphasized that, due to the inherent nature of the Consent Decree reporting process, this Report discusses somewhat historic findings. Indeed, several negative findings in this Report already have been remedied by NOPD, and others are in the process of being remedied. To ensure future reports are issued closer in time to the findings being reported, the Monitoring Team sought and received permission from the Court to issue more frequent, targeted reports in the future. Such reports will focus on a limited number of topics (e.g., supervision or training), and will be issued closer in time to the audits or evaluations being reported. The Monitoring Team believes this new process also will render the Team’s Reports more understandable and easier to digest, and, thus, more useful to the citizens of New Orleans.
The current Quarterly Report, however, like the ones before it, continues to encompass a wide range of NOPD activities and Monitoring Team findings. As noted above, the Monitoring Team had both positive and negative findings during the July 2014 – September 2014 reporting period. Those findings are set forth herein, and are summarized below.
On the negative side, the Monitoring Team continues to be seriously concerned with the quality of NOPD’s training program. We previously have reported on the mixed quality of Academy instruction, the absence of lesson plans, and the lack of strong leadership. Sadly, we found all three problems to persist into this reporting quarter. Training, however, simply is too important not to receive the Department’s utmost attention. Without effective training by qualified instructors using modern teaching materials, tools, and techniques, NOPD’s newest officers will continue to mimic the practices of their predecessors. Cultural change and, thus, constitutional policing, cannot come about in the absence of an effective training program. Over the course of this and last quarter, the Monitoring Team was vocal in making its views regarding the NOPD Training Academy known to the NOPD Compliance Bureau, NOPD management, and the prior and current superintendent.
The Monitoring Team also has been concerned about the pace of the policy drafting, review, and revision process in this quarter. Policies submitted to the Monitoring Team were confusing and incomplete, and revised policies too often failed to remedy the Monitoring Team’s and/or the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) concerns. Toward the end of the reporting period, however, as the Department’s Consent Decree Compliance Implementation Team assumed greater control over the process, the pace and quality of the policies submitted for review began to improve. These improvements have continued and we are optimistic we will see significant improvement in future quarters.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 10 of 69
Page 10 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

A third area in which the Monitoring Team continues to have concern is in the area of close and effective supervision. The absence of records within the various police districts, the absence of complete recordings of interrogations, and the frequency of malfunctioning equipment all contribute to an inability of supervisors to supervise closely and effectively the officers under their command – and the continued lack of progress in these areas further reflects the lack of adequate supervision.
Finally, beyond the foregoing, there are some areas where NOPD has made almost no visible progress at all. In the area of the Crisis Intervention Team (CD IV), for example, NOPD still is not in compliance with almost every Consent Decree obligation. Indeed, NOPD still has not even stood up its Crisis Intervention Planning Committee, a requirement NOPD had to meet by February 2014.1
But this reporting quarter was by no means uniformly negative. The NOPD Compliance Bureau expanded its oversight of in-car and body worn camera functionality and usage. While the results of this increased oversight were not reflected in our third quarter audit – which revealed ongoing problems – we believe they will be reflected in future audits. Additionally, the City Council’s passage of a bill that included funding for the purchase of new NOPD camera servers should go a long way in fixing the frequently non-functional camera issue identified by the Monitoring Team last quarter, which continued into this quarter.
The NOPD took another important step forward during this reporting quarter to remedy the serious deficiencies the Monitoring Team identified at the NOPD Training Academy. As noted above, the Monitoring Team has been an outspoken critic of the Academy both within and outside NOPD. We are pleased to report NOPD now is taking action. First, on October 17, 2014, as part of a broader-based reshuffling of NOPD management, newly appointed Superintendent Harrison replaced the leader of the Training Academy. In her place, he installed a recently-promoted Commander from the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”), Richard A. Williams, Sr. Second, NOPD has begun removing under-performing teachers from its roster of instructors. One such instructor had been the subject of prior negative reviews by the Monitoring Team. Third, the Academy has reached out to find professional instructors outside of NOPD, including within the Tulane Law School. Finally, the Academy, in association with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, has acknowledged the absence of actual lesson plans and has embarked on a concerted effort to remedy that significant non-compliance. While the Monitoring Team finds the time it took the Academy to begin making these changes unfortunate, we are hopeful the Academy now is heading in the right direction.
At the same time the Monitoring Team audits and evaluates NOPD’s compliance with the many paragraphs of the Consent Decree, we continue to meet with community stakeholders to explain the Monitor’s reports and to hear community perspectives of police interactions. (CD

1

Subsequent to this reporting period, the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit, with the urging of the

Monitoring Team, has begun pushing NOPD forward in this area. As described later in this Report, a

Crisis Intervention Team Planning Committee has been formed and plans to meet in January 2015.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 11 of 69
Page 11 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
461) Our primary vehicle for informing the public of our reports and receiving feedback is through our quarterly public meetings. These meetings provide citizens the opportunity to learn more about the Monitoring Team’s findings, to ask questions regarding the state of NOPD compliance with the Consent Decree, and generally share views regarding the ongoing monitoring activities.
We also receive input through our email mailbox, monitoringteam@consentdecreemonitor.com, and meet with community stakeholders who provide us invaluable information concerning their experiences with the NOPD. For example, this quarter, in addition to the numerous citizens with whom we communicate during our various in-person monitoring activities, we attended a presentation on the history and culture of the Black Masking Indians (Mardi Gras Indians). This event helped us to understand that unique and rich cultural tradition as well as the history of the conflicts between the NOPD and these groups. The knowledge we gained will inform our monitoring of how the NOPD manages the Black Masking Indian parades.
Additionally, the Court held a public hearing on our camera findings, during which the Court addressed some of the input it had received from the community.
An illustrative list of community input we received this quarter includes the following:
• Frustration with the pace of change
We and the Court have received comments expressing frustration over how long it appears to be taking to change the NOPD’s practices. We and the Court understand and share that frustration. As we have explained at our community meetings, the project is a large one and change takes time. Nevertheless, we want the community to understand that observable, demonstrable change is occurring. As the Court stated at the public hearing, “a great deal of work has been done and the stage is set for the pace of progress to increase.” The Monitoring Team agrees with that sentiment and will see that that progress becomes more and more visible to the citizens of New Orleans. Among the changes we have seen so far are the NOPD’s creation and staffing of a fully-functioning Consent Decree Implementation Unit; the creation and staffing of the Office of Police Secondary Employment, which is managing all hourly based details; significant recent changes to the Police Academy, including leadership changes; and, while perhaps not visible to the public, significant revisions to NOPD polices, which the Court described as “a huge task.”
The Court concluded the public hearing by stating: “Please be assured that I do share your concerns [that] the Consent Decree be enforced completely and as soon as possible, but this won’t happen overnight. I’m interested in comprehensive and lasting change in the New Orleans Police Department. And, most importantly, I want to be sure that we change attitudes so that these changes will be permanent.” The Monitoring Team understands the sense of urgency. We will continue to do all we can to help the NOPD achieve full and sustained compliance with the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 12 of 69
Page 12 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Consequences
Several community members questioned why the Monitoring Team had not “held NOPD accountable for their non-compliances.” This question was echoed by other community members who expressed concern that the Monitoring Team lacks the authority to sanction NOPD for a failure to comply with the Consent Decree. As we explained in our Quarterly Meeting, the Monitoring Team is tasked by the Consent Decree to review and report on the NOPD’s and the City’s compliance with the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team has no authority to sanction anyone. But that is not to say the Monitoring Team is powerless to effect change. Quite the opposite. Through our unfettered access to NOPD data, facilities, and personnel, the Monitoring Team has unique visibility into the NOPD and its compliance efforts. All non-compliances are reported publicly by the Monitoring Team each quarter. Further, the U.S. District Court holds an in-chambers status hearing (or, as with the issue of in-car cameras, a public court hearing) every quarter where the NOPD must respond to non-compliances identified by the Monitoring Team.2
The Judge’s decision to hold a public hearing in response to the Monitoring Team’s findings on the NOPD’s in-car cameras functionality issue illustrates how our efforts result in holding the NOPD accountable. At the hearing, then-acting Superintendent Harrison testified as follows:
[S]pecifically about the use of cameras, the in-car cameras and body cameras that we’re talking about today, we began at that and we found there were some discrepancies. So, we began to build and implement a system of accountability that are in place now, and we’re strengthening that as we speak, that lets us know what equipment we have, what equipment works, what equipment doesn’t work, who uses it and who doesn’t use it. And a system now is being looked at if a supervisor caught it or didn’t catch it so we can properly manage that.
In short, our monitoring efforts identify areas in which the NOPD is not in compliance with its own policies or the Consent Decree. Our findings are brought to the attention of Judge Morgan, who then can take action that causes the NOPD to respond. The Court, on its own or in response to a motion by the DOJ, has the power to sanction the NOPD if it finds they are not making good faith efforts toward compliance. Thus, while the Monitoring Team does not have authority over the NOPD, our efforts are part of an oversight system that is holding the NOPD accountable and causing change.

2

As of November 2014, the Court began holding monthly in-chambers status hearings to expedite the pace

of change. Additionally, the Court will hold at least three public hearings in 2015.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 13 of 69 Page 13 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Community Input Some community members have expressed the sentiment that the quarterly meetings provide insufficient opportunity to provide input to the Monitoring Team. We are very committed to making the Consent Decree’s requirements for public access meaningful. Because there are restrictions on what we can say publicly, to whom and in what manner, the public meetings we hold in conjunction with the release of our quarterly reports are likely to remain our primary vehicle for communicating with the community. Nevertheless, we expect to be able to create more opportunities for community groups to meet with us to provide input concerning their perceptions of and experiences with the NOPD to ensure our efforts are closely aligned with the concerns and issues of the New Orleans community. • Absence of Paid Citizen Monitoring Some community members expressed anger that more members of the New Orleans community are not being paid to serve on the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team is made up primarily of experts in various aspects of constitutional policing from outside of New Orleans. These individuals are wholly independent, and completely unaligned with any group, organization, or individual within the City. The Team’s independence and expertise give its findings great credibility – whether they are negative or positive toward the NOPD. The Monitoring Team appreciates the comments received from the citizens of New Orleans and encourages others to share their views as well.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 14 of 69
Page 14 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. Summary of Monitoring Activities
This quarter, like the last, involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessments. While we continued to spend significant time reviewing policies and other internal documents, attending training, observing disciplinary hearings, and observing officers on the street, we also continued to gather, code, and review extensive data. Our data analysis this quarter included the following:
• An analysis of CEW, in-car, and Body Worn Camera usage in the various NOPD districts;
• An analysis of NOPD uses of force;
• An ongoing analysis of citizen complaints involving racial profiling; and
• An ongoing analysis of NOPD disciplinary hearings.
These analyses, of course, require the careful attention of policing experts. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team spent many hours this quarter reviewing Use of Force Reports, listening to audio interviews of citizen complaints, watching video footage (from CEW cameras, in-car cameras, and Body Worn Cameras), and reviewing case files. While some of these analyses are ongoing, others have been completed and have revealed important results, which are shared later in this Report.
The Monitoring Team also spent significant time this quarter reviewing NOPD policies, suggesting revisions to those policies, and reviewing the revised policies returned from NOPD. While it is not always immediately apparent to an outsider why this process should take so long, unfortunately it does. At our last Quarterly Meeting, one citizen had this to say about the time it is taking NOPD to draft compliant policies: “How hard can it be. Just write that cops are not allowed to pull people over because of their race. It’s not rocket science.” While we are attracted to the simplicity of the suggestion – and, frankly, share the speakers’ view that the process initially was made harder by NOPD than it should have been – the truth is that drafting effective, comprehensive, compliant policies is not an easy undertaking. Ensuring that policies are well written; well organized; consistent with all related NOPD policies and procedures; and compliant with every provision of the Consent Decree is a painstakingly difficult but critical task.
The Monitoring Team likewise spent significant time this quarter personally observing NOPD training. Like its policies, NOPD’s training program in many ways is one of the Department’s most important tools to ensure effective, constitutional policing. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team puts its collective decades of experience together to observe personally as much training as possible. As reported below, this observation has revealed some very important findings.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 15 of 69
Page 15 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In the area of sexual assault and domestic violence, as discussed in greater detail later in this Report, the Monitoring Team continues to track a number of PIB investigations and, in three of those investigations this quarter, has prompted the PIB to re-focus, expand, and/or give new urgency to its ongoing investigation.
Finally, as we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team has spent time meeting with and listening to the parties to the Consent Decree. The Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and DOJ. We continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Team, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor.
VI. POLICIES AND TRAINING
We have reported previously on the serious deficiencies in NOPD’s policies and the flaws in its process for revising those policies to comply with the Consent Decree’s requirements. See Second Quarterly Report at 28, Third Quarterly Report at 16. We attributed the deficiencies to a lack of policy-drafting expertise, organizational structure, and personnel assigned to the task. On an encouraging note, however, last quarter we reported our observation that the staffing of the NOPD’s Consent Decree Implementation Team (“Implementation Team”) had improved the process, and we expressed our optimism that this development would improve the quality of the policies submitted for review, expediting the approval process. While that improvement did not occur as quickly as we had hoped, toward the end of this reporting quarter the changes, to the process implemented by the Implementation Team produced noticeable improvement. Importantly, subsequent to this reporting period, as a result of the changes the process gained momentum and the quality of policies submitted for review improved. While we cannot report that the problems that have plagued the process thus far have been solved, we are optimistic the improvements will be permanent. We will provide a more comprehensive assessment in a future report.
Focusing on activities in this reporting quarter, the parties and the Monitoring Team reviewed policies dealing with use of force, mobile vehicle cameras, and investigative stops. Other policies were submitted by NOPD and reviewed by the Monitoring Team as well. The Use of Force Policy actually is embodied in 14 separate policies. The basic Use of Force Policy is Policy 300. Because of inconsistencies and contradictions between and within the various Use of Force policies, the Monitoring Team and DOJ decided first to review, revise, and approve Policy 300 and then to conform the various Use of Force subsidiary policies to it. The Policy required extensive revision. Nevertheless, progress was made and the Monitoring Team expects it to be approved shortly. We also anticipate that the mobile vehicle camera policy will be approved in the coming quarter. The investigative stops policy requires substantial development and we cannot currently forecast when it will be acceptable.
Going forward we expect the Department to continue to implement the following process improvements:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 16 of 69
Page 16 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• At the beginning of the drafting process, review and assess policies of other police departments and model policies for their suitability to serve as a starting point for the NOPD’s revision process.
• Develop procedures to ensure definitions and terms used in a policy are consistent with other polices and the accompanying procedure. Intentional inconsistencies should be specifically identified and defined in the policy.
• Develop procedures to ensure policies comply with the relevant Consent Decree provisions.
• Consult with internal subject matter experts to ensure the policies can be implemented effectively as written
• Prior to submitting the policy to the Monitoring Team and the DOJ, consider not only whether the policy is compliant and understandable, but whether the words, organization, and tone of the policy send the correct message to officers.
• Provide additional training to policy drafting personnel.
The Monitoring Team has provided NOPD a Policy Development Checklist to promote uniformity in the process and to ensure all the critical steps in the policy drafting process have been performed. It requires each task to be initialed by the individual responsible for its completion and lists the following tasks:
• Compliant with all related paragraphs of the Consent Decree (list paragraphs) • NOPD subject matter expert consulted during drafting • External subject matter expert(s) consulted • Person(s) responsible for training on policy were involved in development • Stakeholder input obtained • Is the purpose of the policy clearly stated • Are all key terms defined • Are definitions checked for consistency with Master Log of definitions • Are definitions internally consistent • Is each required task or procedure included • Person or unit responsible for each required task or procedure is identified • Required tasks or procedures are presented in a logical sequence • Due dates are clearly delineated • Associated polices are referenced as appropriate • Paragraphs are correctly numbered • Draft has been proofed for grammar and spelling
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 17 of 69
Page 17 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Department staff who will have to follow policies have been consulted • Command level have reviewed the final draft
We recommend the NOPD submit this completed checklist when submitting polices for initial review. Additionally, as the pace of the process improves, we also recommend the Department assign or hire additional civilian personnel to the policy revision process to accelerate the pace at which policies can be revised and, in turn, approved. Implementation of these recommendations will streamline the review process by improving the quality of policies submitted for review.
VII. USE OF FORCE (CD 27-100)
In this quarter, we continued our review and analysis of use of force incidents and reporting. This review consists of studying both what the data show concerning force use and reporting (a quantitative, horizontal analysis), and examining individual uses and reporting of force used (a qualitative, vertical analysis). We previously reported the data showed two important correlations:
• First, the data revealed generally that if a police-subject encounter is recorded on video, whether through recordings by officers on the scene or by citizens, less force is used.
• Second, the data also showed a troubling failure to follow current NOPD policy concerning video recording and preservation, obtaining witness interviews, completing force statements, and supervisory review.
Thus, these two data sets suggest consistent observation may have an ameliorating effect on the amount of force used by NOPD officers, but, by not closely investigating and reviewing each use of force incident, the NOPD may be tolerating higher than necessary levels of force.
While it may seem obvious, the failure to comply with NOPD’s current use of force reporting requirements – including the failure of supervisors to respond to the scene of the use of force to conduct the required investigation, photograph injuries, and obtain force statements for all officers observing a use of force – and the failure to interview all civilian witnesses to a use of force incident, impede the important NOPD responsibility to determine whether the force used was reasonable. The absence of this information harms the NOPD in two ways. First, it prevents the NOPD from holding officers accountable for improper use of force, which was the subject of significant findings in the DOJ investigation and remains a paramount concern of the community. Second, it impairs the NOPD’s ability to learn from use of force incidents to improve policies, procedures, tactics, training, and equipment.
In this quarter, we focused on those individual instances that required further in-depth analysis in order to make a finding concerning the reasonableness of the force used. That effort entails a detailed review of each file. Additionally, in some instances we had to locate evidence
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 18 of 69
Page 18 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

not available at the time of our initial review, which we did. That process is time-consuming and our findings will be reported in a stand-alone report when complete. Nevertheless, the analysis we have conducted thus far has yielded some interesting, albeit preliminary, findings.
Focusing on just Level 3 and Level 4 uses of force (the two highest levels identified in the Consent Decree), 3 the Monitoring Team identified 50 use of force events for analysis. Seventeen of the files we reviewed did not have force statements from all involved or witness officers. In 14 cases, the investigating supervisor did not document that he or she responded to the scene to conduct the investigation, which is a requirement of current NOPD policy and the Consent Decree. In 40 of the 50 cases the Monitoring Team reviewed, there was no evidence that photos of the subject were taken to either confirm or refute the presence and degree of injuries. In 9 of the 25 events occurring since the deployment of body worn cameras, no BWC video of the incident was identified as available for review. In five of the 16 cases where there was a BWC video recording, the supervisor’s investigative report does not indicate whether he or she reviewed and considered the video in determining whether the use of force was reasonable or unreasonable. In 7 cases, our review of documents included in the file indicate the presence of one or more citizen witnesses, yet the investigating supervisor does not document any of their interviews.
NOPD has been responsive to the Monitoring Team’s identification of these shortcomings and has taken steps to correct them. The Monitoring Team continues to work closely with NOPD to ensure future uses of force are documented and investigated fully and properly.
VIII. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CD 111-121)
Section IV of the Consent Decree deals with the establishment of a Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) within the NOPD. The Consent Decree requires NOPD to stand up a CIT and implement an effective crisis intervention structure in order “to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.” NOPD has not complied with the Consent Decree requirements relating to the CIT.
Specifically, paragraphs 111 and 112 of the Consent Decree require NOPD and the City to implement a Crisis Intervention Planning Committee “to direct the development and

3

Level 3 uses of force “include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of

impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an

animal.” Level 4 uses of force include all “serious” uses of force, defined by the Consent Decree to include

“(1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3)

all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all

neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of consciousness; (6) all canine bites;

(7) more than two applications of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the

mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or

ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any strike, blow,

kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject.” (CD 14, 76)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 19 of 69
Page 19 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
implementation of the CIT.” The Committee is required to have representation from NOPD and City-contracted mental health professionals, and to seek representation from the Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit, local municipal government, the New Orleans Metropolitan Human Services District, community mental health professionals, professionals from emergency health care receiving facilities, members of the local judiciary, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office, homeless service agencies, and mental health professionals and advocates. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Monitoring Team has seen no evidence the Planning Committee has been constituted, let alone held its first meeting. NOPD is not in compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.4
Paragraph 113 requires NOPD and the City to implement a comprehensive first responder CIT program to develop and maintain specially trained CIT officers. NOPD is not in compliance with its CIT program development obligations.
Paragraphs 114-119 set forth the training NOPD must give its CIT officers, non-CIT officers, and dispatchers. Among other things, the required training includes 40 hours of comprehensive training to CIT officers, a 40 hour curriculum and in-service training program for first responders, 16 hours of specialized training for all new NOPD recruits, and 40 hours of crisis intervention training for new and current dispatchers. NOPD is not in compliance with these Consent Decree-mandated training requirements.5
Finally, it must be noted NOPD has made no progress in the foregoing areas despite the offer of free resources from outside sources. The Metropolitan Human Services District (“the MHSD”),, for example, previously offered NOPD free CIT training conducted by national experts.6 NOPD did not take the MHSD up on its offer. Unfortunately, such inaction is not an anomaly. We have seen NOPD fail to take advantage of free resources in other areas as well. While NOPD has advised the Monitoring Team that it recently has reached out to the MHSD and will take advantage of the offer, its delay in doing so reflects not only an apparent lack of commitment to the CIT requirements of the Consent Decree, but also an absence of effective supervision and/or leadership within the Department.

4

NOPD reports it began making progress on its CIT obligations in November 2014. We will review and

report on that progress next quarter.

5

Paragraph 115 of the Consent Decree, relating to training 20% of the NOPD’s patrol division in the CIT

program, requires compliance within three years of August 9, 2013.

6

The MHSD is one of ten districts across Louisiana created by the state legislature in 2003 to oversee the

delivery of publicly-funded, community-based mental health, addictive disorders and developmental

disabilities services to our area.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 20 of 69
Page 20 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
A. Interrogation Recordings (CD 164 and 165)
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ constitutional rights. In order for NOPD supervisors (and the Monitoring Team) to monitor compliance with the Department’s obligations in this area, custodial interrogations must be recorded and complete and accurate logs must be maintained. Notwithstanding these obligations, NOPD was unable to provide the Monitoring Team full access to its custodial interrogation recordings. Of the eight police districts, Sexual Assault, Homicide, and SOD units the Monitoring Team visited this reporting quarter, only some locations were able to retrieve audio/video recordings of custodial interrogations.
The Monitoring Team reviewed a sample of the available recordings and confirmed the absence of any indication of physical violence or threat of physical violence. (We also, of course, confirmed the absence of any gaps in the recordings, late initiations, and early terminations.) While the Monitoring Team is comforted by the absence of inappropriate conduct in the recordings we were able to review, we remain troubled by NOPD’s inability to provide all recordings to the Monitoring Team for review. We further remain troubled by the apparent lack of recognition of the seriousness of the problem within some districts.
The First District, for example, could not provide complete access to any of its custodial interrogation recordings. The District log indicated there were eight recordings of either custodial interrogations or photographic line-ups during the months of July and August, but District personnel were unable to retrieve any of the recordings. Notably, this was our fifth audit of the First District in which the District was unable to provide the requested recordings due to purportedly malfunctioning recording equipment. This same problem prevented viewing recordings when we conducted audits in November 2013, January 2014, March 2014, and July 2014. As indicated below, several of the other Districts similarly were unable to produce all recordings requested by the Monitoring Team.
The Second District did not have a recording for multiple interrogations listed on its interrogation log. When we audited the District in July, NOPD personnel were unable to produce recordings of four interrogations identified on the District’s log. Moreover, we identified two recordings not shown on the interrogation log. Due to the incompleteness of the District’s log, we reviewed all recordings in the Second District during our July audit. Unfortunately, many of those recordings were of such poor quality, the Monitoring Team was unable to hear or see the discussion taking place in the interrogation room. The lack of quality not only presents challenges to the Monitoring Team, but again highlights the fact that supervisors cannot be conducting close and effective supervision as required by the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team was presented with a log of custodial interrogations in the Third District. Unfortunately, the log of custodial interrogations was not accurate (not all recordings
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 21 of 69
Page 21 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

were logged and entries did not exist for each recording). Additionally, one recording was not logged as a custodial interrogation even though the subject was read his rights, and another interrogation seemed to constitute a “pre-interrogation” in violation of Paragraph 164 (two detectives questioned a subject for over an hour without reading him his rights, only to leave and return an hour later, read him his rights, and attempt to obtain a statement).
The Fourth District was unable to produce recordings for two entries on its Custodial Interrogation log. The Monitoring Team reviewed what has made available, but the District’s lack of preparedness hampered the Monitoring Team’s review.
Fifth District personnel were able to produce recordings for all interrogations completed in June and July.
The Monitoring Team was unable to review any custodial interrogations in the Sixth District during our audit because the District’s computer server was down due to excessive heat. According to the Sixth District personnel with whom we met, the server had been down for more than one week.
During our audit of the Seventh District, the Monitoring Team was advised that no custodial interrogations had been conducted over the course of the prior six months. Upon further investigation, however, we found interrogations had in fact been conducted. The Monitoring Team was advised, however, that all documentation regarding those interrogations had been provided to a Deputy Chief and no copies of the documents were retained by District personnel for viewing by the Monitoring Team. Obviously, scenarios like this are totally unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.7
To its credit, the Eighth District was able to produce a log of its custodial interrogation recordings. The Monitoring Team reviewed 44 of those recordings. Thirty-five of the recordings, however, had video, but no audio; only static.8 This prevented a proper review of those recordings. The officers we interviewed claimed to be unaware of the malfunctioning recording units, which suggests to us the Eighth District supervisors have not been reviewing recordings as part of the “close and effective” supervision required by the Consent Decree. Further suggesting a lack of supervisory review of recordings is the fact that the District’s recorder was left recording June 10, 12, and 13, resulting in multiple one-hour recordings of an empty room, making an efficient supervisory review wholly impractical. In all, of the 44 recordings we reviewed, only 9 were fully reviewable.9

7

The matter was made known to the Compliance Bureau and the Monitoring Team has witnessed a marked

increase in the responsiveness of the Districts since our September audits.

8

There were no documents available for inspection at any of the Districts we audited documenting

equipment failure.

9

None of those nine indicated an improper use of force or other violation of the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 22 of 69
Page 22 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team had a similar unsatisfactory experience when we audited NOPD’s Sex Crimes Unit. According to the personnel we interviewed, the Sex Crimes Unit does not maintain a log of custodial interrogations. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate any custodial interrogation recordings, and, when questioned, NOPD personnel advised the Monitoring Team no custodial interrogations occurred over the course of the prior nine months. Since the absence of a single custodial interrogation over the course of ¾ of a year seems unlikely to us, the Monitoring Team has expanded our focus into the issue to confirm the veracity of the statements regarding custodial interrogations.
Similarly, SOD was unable to produce video of any custodial interrogations.
In contrast to many of the other districts and units audited, NOPD’s Homicide Unit was able to present the Monitoring Team with a complete log of its custodial interrogations. We reviewed the two most recent recordings, neither of which showed any evidence of physical force or threatened force.
In sum, notwithstanding some recent positive development, NOPD remains unable to demonstrate compliance with paragraphs 164 and 165 of the Consent Decree. This noncompliance is problematic in its own right, but also reflects yet another failure of supervisors to provide close and effective supervision to officers.
B. Interrogation Case Files (CD 166)
Paragraph 166 of the Consent Decree requires that officers “maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations.” None of the districts, however, were able to produce all of their case files as requested by the Monitoring Team. Some districts were able to provide some case files, but not others. Much of the unavailability of case files appears to be due to the files having been forwarded to Central Evidence for use in a criminal case. The Monitoring Team is working with the NOPD Compliance Bureau to devise a more effective means of assessing NOPD’s compliance with this particular Consent Decree requirement. Because NOPD personnel were unable to produce case files when requested by the Monitoring Team, however, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement in most districts.
C. Interview Rooms and Functioning Equipment (CD 167)
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to “designate interview rooms for all districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.” While each district, SOD, and Homicide have a designated or have ready access to an interview room and Sex Crimes has access to two interview rooms as noted above, the functionality and/or use of the audio and video recording equipment remains a problem. Of the eight districts, Homicide, Sex Crimes, and SOD units audited this period, only five duty locations demonstrated evidence of functioning equipment. For complete details, please see Appendix 1.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 23 of 69 Page 23 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD Units With Fully Functioning Recording Equipment

Equipment could not be Validated
55%

Functioning Equipment
45%

Figure 2
The Monitoring Team remains troubled by the frequency of non-functional equipment within the NOPD. As reported in our prior Quarterly Report, we uncovered a similar problem with respect to NOPD’s in-car cameras. The problem here, however, goes beyond the equipment. In our view, the equipment problems shine a spotlight on the continued lack of supervision. While we understand technology is bound to fail now and then, we expect to see such failures treated by NOPD with a sense of urgency. Without recordings, supervisors cannot do their jobs, training opportunities are missed, and citizens rightly will remain suspicious about the cause of the equipment failures and/or whether they were human-caused. The Monitoring Team likewise has no choice but to remain suspicious regarding what happened during unrecorded and/or unlogged interrogations.
D. Qualified Interpreters (CD 168)
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to use qualified interpreters for any interrogation of a Limited English Proficiency (“LEP”) individual, and Miranda warnings be provided to the subject in his or her primary language. NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement as it has not yet provided the Monitoring Team with a list of authorized interpreters or evidence of effective training in interpretation protocols.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 24 of 69
Page 24 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

X. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS (CD 171 - 176)
In executing the Consent Decree, NOPD agreed to ensure that “photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States …” The Consent Decree sets forth several requirements to achieve this result.
A. CD 171
Paragraph 171 of the Consent Decree makes clear that no officer who is involved in an investigation may participate in administering a photographic lineup. Paragraph 171 further requires that the individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement because it was unable to produce complete records for review by the Monitoring Team. Some districts, for example, were not able to provide a log of their photographic line-ups. Indeed, only the NOPD Homicide Unit was able to demonstrate full compliance with paragraph 171. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team was unable to evaluate whether the officer (outside of Homicide) conducting the lineup was involved in the investigation. The Monitoring Team has suggested to several NOPD supervisors, including the NOPD Compliance Bureau, how NOPD can remedy this recordkeeping shortcoming. Until NOPD modifies its practices, however, it will remain unable to demonstrate compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.10
B. CD 172
Paragraph 172 of the Consent Decree requires that, “before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be informed that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup.” For the reasons noted above involving poor record keeping, NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Notwithstanding the absence of complete records, the Monitoring Team reviewed those photographic lineup files and/or recordings that were available to evaluate compliance with the Consent Decree. While the reviewed files did suggest eyewitnesses were being admonished pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree, the unavailability of files and/or recordings prevents the Monitoring Team from finding NOPD in compliance with paragraph 172. It should be noted, however, that the NOPD Homicide Unit again stands out as an exception to the rule; exhibiting not only compliant recording keeping practices, but verifiable compliance with paragraph 172. The Homicide Unit recorded 24 photographic lineups during our audit period, 12 of which elicited a positive identification. The Monitoring Team reviewed 6 of these recordings, and all 6 demonstrated compliance with paragraph 172 of the Consent Decree.

10

Subsequent to this reporting quarter, the NOPD Compliance Bureau has confirmed it is working with the

various NOPD districts to implement the suggestion of the Monitoring Team. We are hopeful the new

reporting protocols will help NOPD meet its obligations under the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 25 of 69
Page 25 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. CD 173
Consent Decree paragraph 173 provides, among other things, that NOPD shall select “filler” photographs—those that do not depict the suspect—of individuals who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator. For the reasons noted above involving poor record keeping, NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
D. CD 174
Paragraph 174 requires that NOPD maintain a complete record of each photographic lineup that includes the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up. Here again, most districts were unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The photographic line-up log maintained by District Two, for example, did not contain the six items of information required by the Consent Decree. Other districts offered similarly inadequate logs to the Monitoring Team for review. Only the NOPD Homicide Unit was able to demonstrate its use of a photographic lineup log that met the requirements of paragraph 174 of the Consent Decree. NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
E. CD 175 and 176
NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with paragraphs 175 and 176 of the Consent Decree due primarily to the absence of complete photographic lineup records. However, it should be noted that some districts have shown significant improvement in these areas. The Seventh District, for example, was able to produce evidence demonstrating compliance with paragraph 176 of the Consent Decree.
XI. BIAS FREE POLICING (CD 177-194)
Section VIII of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. As part of a broad-based audit of NOPD’s compliance with the Bias Free requirements of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team initiated an audit in connection with the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”) focusing on racial profiling.
The joint Monitoring Team/IPM project involves listening to a statistically valid sample of citizen complaints presented to the NOPD PIB to identify those that allege racial profiling. The joint team then reviews the associated PIB intake report to determine whether PIB’s coding of the complaint is consistent with the complaint itself. In other words, we are looking to see whether complaints alleging racial profiling are being coded as something other than racial profiling.
The Monitoring Team also is using this joint project as an opportunity to evaluate whether complaining citizens are being treated properly by the PIB. By listening to the intake
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 26 of 69
Page 26 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recordings, we can assess whether citizens are being discouraged from pursuing their complaints or otherwise are being intimidated or coerced, whether officers are being respectful, and whether the NOPD is complying with its obligations under the Consent Decree regarding the complaint intake process.
Due to the importance of this project, the Monitoring Team expects to issue its findings as part of a special interim report in the future.
XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS (CD 195-222)
Section IX of the Consent Decree focuses on policing free of gender bias. Among other things, this section covers NOPD’s handling of Sex Crimes Unit and domestic violence issues, training issues, supervision, coding of incidents, and dealing with victims of crimes. Prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, DOJ looked closely at this area and identified a number of significant problems with NOPD’s policies, procedures, and practices. Over the course of this reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team continued to spend significant time focusing on this important topic.
As an initial observation, we note the NOPD Sex Crimes Unit has had at least four different leaders over the course of the past 14 months. This constant change in leadership has made it extremely hard for NOPD to focus on remedying the problems identified by DOJ and meeting the requirements imposed by the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team believes such management inconsistency reflects a lack of focus – or perhaps even a lack of commitment – to this critical topic by NOPD leadership. We hope we are wrong, but until we see evidence otherwise, we will continue to find NOPD not in compliance with the Consent Decree in this area.
In our prior quarterly report, we did recognize NOPD had made progress in some areas. The Department, for example, in accordance with Consent Decree paragraph 206, did issue a directive to Special Victims Section (“SVS”) detectives prohibiting the use of miscellaneous “complaint” item codes (called “Signal 21s”) to classify Sex Crimes. Over the course of this reporting quarter, we interviewed numerous SVS detectives and officers, almost all of whom were aware of the directive. Nonetheless, the Monitoring Team found the directive to fall short of the broad-based pronouncement needed to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. Accordingly, we advised NOPD to broaden the applicability of the directive and to incorporate it into a formal policy. NOPD is in the process of drafting a comprehensive Sex Crimes and domestic violence policy, which incorporates the Signal 21 directive. While NOPD has made progress in this area, it has not yet demonstrated compliance with its Consent Decree obligations.
Even in advance of the formal policy, the directive to SVS detectives appears to be having an impact on the actions of NOPD personnel. According to NOPD records, there have been only 6 uses of a Signal 21 in the context of a Sex Crime in 2014, which suggests the directive is having its intended effect. The Monitoring Team is in the process of conducting an
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 27 of 69
Page 27 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
audit of Signal 21s in coordination with the New Orleans OIG to evaluate NOPD’s compliance with this requirement.
In addition to assessing compliance with the specific Consent Decree requirements, the Monitoring Team spent significant time this reporting quarter investigating and tracking the progress of specific Sex Crimes and domestic violence cases. In this context, we brought three cases to the attention of the NOPD where we thought the initial investigation was inadequate or the actions of the NOPD were otherwise deficient. These cases have involved a sex crime, a domestic violence homicide, and a burglary/stalking case. With respect to these cases, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the IPM, PIB, and DOJ to ensure each case received the attention it deserved.
The Monitoring Team also has closely observed the NOPD’s progress with respect to the City’s Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”). As described in prior reports, the SART is a collaboration of agencies working together to strengthen the City’s response to sexual assaults. The Monitoring Team has been impressed by the SART program. The recent media attention involving rape victims being charged for emergency room exams came directly from SART partners exchanging information and reaching out to those who can change the laws. SART leaders also recently materially contributed to the drafting of NOPD’s Domestic Violence policy and currently are working on a similar policy to cover NOPD’s response to Sex Crimes. Both policies will require annual reports from NOPD with statistics and narratives available to the public.
Finally, although occurring beyond the end of the current reporting period, we would be remiss not to mention the recently released report by the New Orleans Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) concerning NOPD’s Special Victims Section. The OIG found serious deficiencies and widespread neglect upon reviewing 2012/2013 case files of a select number of detectives in NOPD’s Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Units. Similar problems were identified by DOJ in its initial report preceding the Consent Decree, and the Monitoring Team’s work has shown that many of the shortcomings identified by DOJ persist. The Monitoring Team is closely observing the NOPD Task Force charged with re-investigating the files identified by the OIG and continues closely to monitor the Special Victims Section’s work in all areas.
XIII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CD 223-233)
This reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team finalized its plans for conducting the community portion of the Biennial Survey and completed its analysis of the results of the police officer portion of that survey, conducted earlier this year. The community survey was conducted in early December and involved a door-to-door oral survey administered throughout New Orleans. The survey was designed to ensure a statistically valid cross-section of the City in terms of neighborhoods, ethnicities, income, and other demographic factors. The final prong of the Biennial Survey – the detainee survey – was conducted just prior to the release of this report. The results of the community survey and the detainee survey will be analyzed and presented
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 28 of 69
Page 28 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

alongside the results of the already-conducted police officer survey in a forthcoming interim report.
XIV. RECRUITMENT (CD 234-244)
The Consent Decree requires NOPD and the City to develop and implement a “comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers.” (CD XI). To do this, NOPD is required to, among other things, “develop a written, strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants.” (CD 234). The Consent Decree further encompasses recruitment requirements relating to staffing, qualifications, training, transparency, community outreach, and more.
While the Monitoring Team has not yet conducted a full audit of the NOPD’s recruitment activities, it should be pointed out that NOPD has made progress in this area. On August 24, 2014, for example, the Mayor, Superintendent Harrison, and several others visited 20 faith-based organizations across the city in an effort to recruit qualified candidates for the NOPD. This is the sort of affirmative community outreach activity that is contemplated by paragraph 239 of the Consent Decree.
In fact, according to NOPD’s records, Department personnel were engaged in a number of community outreach and other Consent Decree-related activities throughout this reporting quarter, as indicated in Figure 3 below.

NOPD Recruiting Activities & Events
25

20

15

10

5

0 July

August

September

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 29 of 69
Page 29 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Figure 3

These activities included attending community meetings, staffing the Department’s recruitment vehicle at events (such as Mardi Gras), attending job fairs, and attending Consent Decree requirement training. The breakdown of NOPD’s recruiting activities was as follows:

Recruitment Activities

Misc Outreach 4%
Online Activities 6%

Training Job Fairs

8%

14%

Community Meetings 39%

Public Events 29%

Figure 4
In July, the City and the NOPD, in conjunction with the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation (“NOPJF”) announced an expanded recruitment effort titled “Get Behind the Badge.” The program incorporates an online presence (www.joinnopd.org), digital marketing, and the use of “job posting tactics” on career-based websites. According to the NOPJF, the number of new candidates applying to join the NOPD has expanded greatly since the initiation of the Get Behind the Badge program. According to NOPD’s records, the Department interviewed 38 new candidates in July and an additional 37 in August. The Monitoring Team will undertake a thorough assessment of NOPD’s recruitment program in a future quarter.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 30 of 69
Page 30 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING (CD 245-288)
A. Introduction
The importance of effective training for police officers is beyond question. A department’s training program is a new officer’s first taste of the culture, rules, and expectations of being a police officer. It likewise is the department’s first opportunity to make clear what it values and what it will not tolerate. The Monitoring Team’s prior Quarterly Report, however, identified significant shortcomings in NOPD’s training programs. In addition to non-existent lesson plans, we recognized that, while some of the instruction we observed was substantively high quality, taught by a dynamic instructor using teaching techniques appropriate for an adult audience, some of the instruction we observed was substantively inadequate, not well presented, and ineffective. Unfortunately, our observations this quarter revealed that many of those previously-identified shortcomings remain.
Moreover, our observations this quarter continue to leave us with the strong impression that the NOPD has not given adequate attention to the importance of training. Since our appointment, the Monitoring Team has not seen any dynamic innovations, any creativity, or any real passion toward this critical component of the Consent Decree. What we have seen (with the noted exception of the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit) is an effort – sometimes explicit, sometimes implied – to do the bare minimum to check off boxes per the Consent Decree. To put it bluntly, that will not cut it. The Consent Decree contemplates material and lasting change in order to achieve constitutional policing. Such change comes about not through checking boxes. It comes about first by recognizing problems exist, and second by dedicating the time, resources, skill, and money to fix them. It comes about when passionate and energetic people commit themselves to change. We have not seen any of that yet within the NOPD as it relates to training.
The following sections highlight some of the Monitoring Team’s specific findings relating to training. A forthcoming special report (and public court hearing) will present a more holistic assessment of NOPD’s training program beyond the specific non-compliances noted below.
B. Lesson Plans
A lesson plan, according to experts, is an “instructor’s road map of what students need to learn and how it will be done effectively during the class time.”11 Few would argue over this fundamental premise of effective teaching. Yet, despite prior findings of the Monitoring Team, NOPD continued to operate the Academy throughout this reporting quarter with inadequate and, in most cases, non-existence lesson plans. In response to our inquiries, the Academy did produce all materials that it claimed to be lesson plans; but, in fact, most of these materials simply were

11

University of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.

(http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/p2_5).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 31 of 69
Page 31 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
PowerPoint presentations. Paragraph 253 of the Consent Decree describes the content of a compliant lesson plan. Specifically, the Consent Decree makes clear a lesson plan must set forth:
• Course title; • Course overview; • Date lesson plan was created or updated; • Learning objectives; • Prerequisites (if any); • Course length; • Required materials; • Equipment and facilities; • Safety measures required (if applicable); • Testing/certification; and • Reference list.
A sufficient lesson plan also must “describe content and instructional strategies in sufficient detail to ensure consistent delivery of instruction by different instructors.”
While NOPD previously had notified the Monitoring Team that all lesson plans and curricula were available at the Training Academy, the Department’s July 2014 “Status Report” acknowledged that “lesson plans do not exist for all training modules . . . .” In fact, our observations revealed that lesson plans do not exist for most training modules. Accordingly, NOPD is not in compliance with this Consent Decree requirement. Even more importantly, however, NOPD is virtually ensuring substandard training for its officers.
C. Outdated Materials
As reported in prior quarters, the NOPD Academy continues to rely upon outdated and, in some cases, questionable materials. Until very recently, for example, the Academy on-boarded new officers by showing them a 1967 clip from the then-popular Dragnet TV series. In the clip, Sergeant Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb, lectures a rookie officer on what it means to be a police officer. While the clip certainly identified some of the difficulties associated with being an officer, on balance the clip reeks of an “us versus them” (i.e., police versus citizen) attitude, which is a highly inappropriate message for any officer – let alone a new recruit – and inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Consent Decree’s community engagement provisions. The Monitoring Team presented its concerns to the NOPD and the video has been removed from the Academy curriculum. We were discouraged, however, that the issue had to be identified and raised by the Monitoring Team rather than being proactively recognized and remedied by the Academy itself.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 32 of 69
Page 32 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D. Academy Leadership
To be effective, the NOPD Academy must have adequate facilities, accurate and engaging materials, and instructors who understand and can present those materials in a manner that maximizes absorption by the students. An effective Academy also must have strong, passionate, proactive, and effective leadership. The Monitoring Team previously criticized the Academy’s leadership for failing to meet these standards. On October 17, 2014, however, Superintendent Harrison announced a “realignment” of his senior leadership, which involved the replacement of the Commander of the Training Academy. Specifically, NOPD replaced the prior Academy Commander with Richard A. Williams Sr., who, until recently, served as a Lieutenant in the PIB. Commander Williams is a 23-year veteran of the NOPD. He has an Associate’s Degree in Criminal Justice from Delgado Community College, a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from Loyola University New Orleans, a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from University of New Orleans, and is currently working to complete a Doctorate of Philosophy in Urban Studies from University of New Orleans. The Monitoring Team has met with Commander Williams and has impressed upon him the importance of remedying the shortcomings in the Academy.
We recognize, of course, that a new Academy Commander is not a panacea. The Academy is just one leg of NOPD’s training stool. NOPD needs to fix the inadequacy of the Academy to be sure, but the Department also must rethink its commitment to training more generally. And such rethinking should not focus on what is the bare minimum to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree. The NOPD should be striving to create a holistic training program that encompasses all training components (the Academy, in-service training, the Department’s research bureau, and more), identifying creative and innovative solutions to problems, and recognizing the critical importance of training officers in best practices. There is no room for a “that’s how we do things here” attitude. The Consent Decree was imposed to change the way things are done here.
E. Instructors and Instruction
The quality of NOPD’s Academy instructors and instruction continues to be a mixed bag. The Monitoring Team attended several in-service training classes this reporting quarter. As indicated below, we observed some very positive things and some very negative things. An illustrative sample of some of those observations follows:
1. Ethics Training
The ethics course started more than 30 minutes later than scheduled. The course was taught by an instructor who had not taught an ethics course previously, and was serving as a substitute teacher. While we understand every instructor needs to teach his or her first course at some point, we would have much preferred to have had that first course co-taught by an experienced instructor alongside the new instructor. Such an approach would have prevented many of the shortcomings of this course. For example, as the instructor went through the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 33 of 69
Page 33 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
PowerPoint slides he conceded he did not know what some of the slides contained and was not prepared to discuss them. Overall, the sergeant was not prepared to instruct the course, had no lesson plan, and was unfamiliar with course content that was contained in the PowerPoint presentation. Again, we understand that this was a substitute teacher, but that does not excuse inadequate preparation. The teacher should have prepared, should have taught with an experienced teacher, or the class should have been rescheduled.
Our initial dissatisfaction with the course was further solidified when the instructor informed the students that “ethics can’t be taught since one either has it or does not.” We believe (and ethics experts disagree) that personnel can be and regularly taught organizational ethics and values. Quality ethics courses are taught every day within private industry and the public sector, including by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Offices of Inspector General, and ethics officers. The view espoused by the instructor not only was incorrect, but was counter-productive and contrary to the explicit terms of the Consent Decree. (CD 266). In short, the Monitoring Team was quite disappointed with the content, presentation, and tone of this course.
2. Community Policing & Ethics Training
While we had no objection to the substance of this course, we noted a tendency of the instructor to lose control of the classes. This loss of control led to extraneous conversations going on in the back of the room that were quite distracting to those officers trying to pay attention. Moreover, the instructor was unable to explain to the students why certain things were supposed to be done a certain way, which prompted negative reactions from some of the students. Quality instructors are able to explain not only what the rule is, but the reason for the rule.
3. Driver and Vehicle Pursuit Training
The Monitoring Team was impressed by the quality of this instructor. He not only had knowledge of his subject matter, but also spoke with passion and enthusiasm for his job. He had excellent knowledge of the NOPD’s pursuit policy and stated the policy verbatim. Speaking with some officers, the instructor clearly is well-respected by the students. Unfortunately, the policy itself is outdated and is in the process of being revised, and therefore the instructor continues to teach practices that are inconsistent with the Consent Decree. Once the revised policy is finalized, however, we expect the instructor to embrace the revision and teach the new practices with a similar level of knowledge and enthusiasm.
4. Domestic Violence Training
We found this course significantly below par, led by an inadequate instructor. Not only did this instructor lack a lesson plan, but he relied upon outdated materials. He also presented the material in a manner that did not incorporate adult learning techniques, which made it hard for students to absorb.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 34 of 69
Page 34 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The instructor began the class with a one-sentence description of his background, which made it hard for the students to assess his qualifications for teaching. The instructor also provided no explanation of the goals or objectives of the course. His teaching tools included one handout and a very uninteresting PowerPoint. Not only was the material uninteresting to the Monitoring Team, but we observed many of the class attendees were uninterested as well, engaging in distracting discussions throughout the course, which the instructor did not stop. The instructor’s presentation style certainly contributed to the students’ lack of attention.
While the use of personal experiences can serve as a useful teaching tools, good instructors think through the pros and cons of the experiences they choose to share. Both mistakes and successes can serve as useful tools if presented properly by a good instructor. The Academy’s Domestic Violence instructor, however, spent ten minutes during class talking about his personal situation with his ex-wife. The substance of the discussion had no obvious training component, and the lack of attention of the students seemed to confirm the Monitoring Team’s view. And the instructor’s message, which he summarized as “protect yourself,” once again contributed to an “us versus them” attitude which undermines constructive policy/community relations.
While the course had its positives – the primary instructor did discuss new laws and did answer questions with some practical (and constitutional) advice – overall it was not engaging, interactive, or effective.
It is important to note the Monitoring Team previously expressed dissatisfaction regarding the NOPD’s primary Domestic Violence Course instructor (and the course generally) following a prior observation. Notwithstanding this dissatisfaction, the instructor continued to teach the course when we returned to observe it again. We immediately brought the issue to the attention of the NOPD Compliance Bureau, and have been assured NOPD is working to identify a new instructor for this course. In fact, we have confirmed that NOPD has reached out to Tulane University to identify a new instructor. While we are impressed with Tulane’s willingness to support the Academy and have been impressed by the quality of the instruction we have seen among the Tulane team, we view the assistance of Tulane more as a Band-Aid than a solution. At the end of the day, NOPD should develop its own qualified, quality instructors.
5. Crimes Classification Training
In contrast to the Academy’s Domestic Violence course, we were impressed by this training taught by a retired NOPD sergeant. The sergeant showed an excellent command of the subject matter and the class, and his presentation tools were quite interesting and effective, prompting a healthy and proactive discussion with the members of the class. He used an excellent PowerPoint as well as camera recording to help make certain points. He showed himself to be quite passionate about the importance of complying with the rules and won points from the class when he quite professionally – and correctly – rejected a student’s suggestion of a convenient, but non-compliant, approach to crime classification.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 35 of 69
Page 35 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

6. CEW Training
The Monitoring Team attended NOPD’s in-service training program covering the use of Conducted Electrical Weapons (“CEW”), 12 i.e., Tasers. The training took place in the Third District Station. While the training facility was less than ideal, the quality of the instruction was excellent. The instructor, an NOPD lieutenant, is an excellent trainer. He is certified by Taser (the manufacturer of the CEW used by NOPD) and by the Peace Officer Standard and Training Council (“POST”) to teach the CEW class. Unlike most other instructors we observed, this lieutenant did teach from a lesson plan.
The lieutenant used a PowerPoint presentation during his course, which the Monitoring Team found to be excellent. He also included a wide variety of videos to assist in making his points. The instructor also provided hand-outs with policy, reporting guidelines, and Taser warnings. He covered all the appropriate topics, engaged the class in discussion, and used videos to illustrate correct and incorrect policing. The videos were relevant and reinforced the instruction. The lieutenant explained that many of the positive changes in NOPD’s new policy and procedure were the result of the Consent Decree, which reinforces the Consent Decree requirement that NOPD promote awareness of and compliance with the Consent Decree. Indeed, unlike some instructors we have observed, all of the lieutenant’s comments were favorable toward the Consent Decree and the need for continued improvement by the NOPD.
In short, the Monitoring Team was impressed. The instructor was well-qualified, well spoken, polished, prepared, and engaging. He kept the attention of his students, used adultlearning techniques, and clearly left the officers better prepared for the proper use of the CEW.
7. Cultural Diversity and Sensitivity Training
The Monitoring Team attended NOPD’s Cultural Diversity Class held by the Training Academy. As with some of the other classes we observed, the instructor here, an NOPD sergeant, had some trouble controlling his class. Several side conversations, including comments among small groups of officers that resulted in laughter, went on through much of the course and were not addressed by the instructor. Such laxity by an instructor, especially in an area as susceptible to misunderstanding and offense as cultural diversity, can lead to an appearance that the instructor does not embrace the subject matter. Of course, it also can demonstrate the instructor, in fact, does not embrace the subject matter. That being said, for the most part, the instructor created a laid-back atmosphere that encouraged interaction, which we viewed as a positive.
The cultural diversity PowerPoint presentation mainly consisted of various groups who experienced discrimination in the United States due to sexual preference, sex, race, religion, culture, and national origin. Throughout the class the sergeant stressed working with the

12

Under the new NOPD policy, the proper term is CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapons) rather

than ECW (Electronic Control Weapons), which was used previously.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 36 of 69
Page 36 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
community to rebuild relationships. However, the majority of comments from the class did not focus on cultural sensitivity issues, but rather complained about various issues including a lack of administrative support. One officer said he would leave for another department if he could. Many of the other complaints were in regard to public perception, poor equipment, negative media reports, lack of take-home cars, and low pay.
One officer sincerely spoke of the need for officers to think about how they treat the people they encounter. Many officers agreed that good people skills were the most important attribute that make good police officers.
The presentation and the direction the instructor’s comments made clear the instructor did not develop a lesson plan for this course. The class merely had a PowerPoint presentation and the comments and discussion varied widely from the course subject matter.
XVI. SUPERVISION (CD 306-331)
As we have in the past three quarters, the Monitoring Team again spent significant time this quarter focusing on NOPD supervision and supervisors. And we continued to identify serious deficiencies in the level and effectiveness of supervision we see from NOPD’s sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and commanders. We saw these deficiencies in most districts as well as in specialized units; and we saw them in a multitude of contexts, including failing to review Use of Force Reports, failing to review video recordings, inadequate record keeping, the non-existence of lesson plans, unreported non-functioning equipment, and more. These are serious problems that must be remedied.
Moreover, in contrast to prior quarters, we did not receive the full cooperation of all the supervisors with whom we dealt. In several districts, personnel were not made readily available, supervisors did not give adequate attention to the importance of the audit, documents were not presented in an organized fashion, and the district generally was unprepared for the audit – notwithstanding the fact that most of these audits were announced to the district in advance. We expressed our dissatisfaction with the level of cooperation to the NOPD and the problems were remedied promptly. The level of cooperation the Monitoring Team received in September and October was far superior to what we received in July and August. Nonetheless, as it is NOPD’s burden to establish compliance with the elements of the Consent Decree, where the necessary documents and/or personnel were not made available to the Monitoring Team, we were unable to find NOPD in compliance with its Consent Decree obligations. (CD 486)
A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306-313)
1. CD 306
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the “close and effective supervision” necessary to direct and guide their officers. Specifically, paragraph 306 requires supervisors to respond to the scene of certain
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 37 of 69
Page 37 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
arrests, review each arrest report, respond to the scene of uses of force, investigate each use of force, review the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports, respond to each complaint of misconduct, ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety, and provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed. Moreover, the Consent Decree requires that NOPD hold supervisors accountable for performing each of these tasks.
As we have in each of the preceding quarters, the Monitoring Team conducted in-person audits of the several NOPD districts, as well as the specialty units, to evaluate whether such close and effective supervision was being conducted in each of these areas. Our audits revealed only partial compliance.
Our audits revealed some evidence supervisors responded to the scene of certain arrests as required by the Consent Decree. However, since all arrest case files were not available, we were unable to confirm the consistency of supervisor responses. We likewise identified some evidence that supervisors reviewed some arrest reports and that supervisors reviewed the officers’ daily activity reports (most reports we reviewed were signed by supervisors). Here again, however, the absence of some records in some districts prevents us from finding NOPD in full compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
Another obligation of supervisors is to provide counseling and/or redirection for officers in need. Our review identified few documents that provided evidence of counseling or redirection, and few documents were produced to provide evidence of disciplinary action to hold officers accountable for violations of NOPD rules. Few districts had a list of counseling memos or disciplinary actions initiated, and few of the districts had copies of disciplinary (D1 or D2) paperwork. This is problematic since supervisors who are unaware of their subordinate’s discipline are not providing “close and effective” supervision as required by the Consent Decree.
With respect to community engagement, which is another obligation of supervisors, we identified few documents in any of the districts indicating officers and/or supervisors are engaging with the community as required by the Consent Decree. We likewise identified few documents evidencing that supervisors were held accountable for performing their community engagement duties.
Most districts did not provide documents of roll call subject matter to provide evidence of “close and effective” supervision, that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety, that supervisors responded to citizens’ complaints, or that supervisors responded to each use of force. In fact, nearly half of police Use of Force Reports reviewed do not document a supervisor responded to the scene, initiated an investigation into the use of force, or made assessments regarding the justification or reasonableness of the use of force.
Some district platoon supervisors did have a file for each officer assigned to the platoon. The file contained letters of appreciation from the public, written counseling, awards,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 38 of 69
Page 38 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
disciplinary reports, Use of Force Reports, and job enhancement performance reports. The supervisors on those shifts maintain documentation of good and poor performance and the actions they took as supervisors to address the performance of officers under their command. The vast majority of shift supervisors, however, could not produce any or any significant amount of documentation of subordinates’ performance.
The supervisor’s activity reports (trip sheets) we reviewed generally lack the capacity to capture meaningful information to provide evidence of “close and effective supervision.” These reports generally do not document that supervisors are meeting the obligations set forth in the Consent Decree. Indeed, the supervisor’s activity report is little more than an officer’s activity report (trip sheet) with the word “supervisor” replacing the word “officer” as the title of the form. The form fails to differentiate the responsibilities of a supervisor and signifies the supervisor completes the same duties as an officer. The supervisors’ activity sheets are referred to as “trip” sheets indicating they track each individual call just as the officers track calls. In short, the supervisors’ activity report are inadequate to document the function of supervisors. Supervision involves more than tracking calls answered during a shift. Supervisors’ duties are vastly different, encompass much more than what can be tracked using an officer’s activity sheet, and should include the duties specifically completed by supervisors and required by the Consent Decree.
It is the view of the Monitoring Team that supervisor reports should include monitoring of officers, guidance provided to officers, counseling, discipline initiated or administered, responding to and investigating citizen complaints, responding to and investigating use of force incidents, responding to certain arrests, approving arrest reports, approving activity reports (trip sheets), completing performance evaluations, and ensuring officers work actively to engage the public and increase public trust.
In conclusion, supervisors have provided anecdotal information in regard to some of their activities that could provide evidence of compliance with paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree ,but there is no systemic method to document or track compliance. The supervisor report does not track what supervisors’ responsibilities should be. It is geared to primarily address internal NOPD data reporting obligations (COMSTAT). An appropriate supervisor’s report should be utilized to provide data as evidence of compliance with the Consent Decree as the current report provides data for the COMSTAT meetings.
2. CD 307
Paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree requires that, within 270 days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearlydefined supervisor. The Monitoring Team evaluated compliance with this requirement in each NOPD district.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 39 of 69
Page 39 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As a preliminary matter, in the Spring of 2014, the NOPD merged its district Task Forces and Narcotics Task Forces into a single organization called “General Assignments.” We were unable to identify work schedules for General Assignments to determine compliance with paragraph 307. The officers assigned to this new unit work various days and shifts that differ from the hours and shifts the supervisor is scheduled to work. The result of working these overlapping shifts is that the officers assigned to General Assignments are supervised by various platoon supervisors. This violates paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree.
The lone supervisor works some days, generally four days per week, with subordinate officers. The days the supervisor does not work with subordinate officers, the subordinate officers report to the platoon supervisors. Platoon supervisors have advised the Monitoring Team in the past that they generally know when the General Assignment supervisor is off because those personnel will summon the platoon supervisors when a supervisor is needed. This does not demonstrate compliance.
In contrast, we found most but not all NOPD districts to be in compliance with paragraph 307 with respect to most of its patrol officers and investigators as follows:
• The First District was able to demonstrate compliance.
• The Second District was unable to provide any information regarding supervisor assignments. They were unable to provide work schedules for the three platoons, the two investigations squads, and the General Assignment positions. Accordingly, the Second District was unable to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree.
• The Third District was able to demonstrate compliance with respect to two of its three platoons.
• The Fourth District was able to demonstrate compliance with respect to its platoons.
• The Fifth District was able to demonstrate compliance with respect to its platoons.
• The Sixth District was not able to demonstrate compliance with respect to its platoons. The work schedules were not available for the Monitoring Team. The District’s administrative officer was unable to locate the schedules when requested to do so.
• The Seventh District was able to demonstrate compliance with respect to its platoons.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 40 of 69
Page 40 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• The Eighth District was unable to produce all requested work assignments, thus, was unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
Overall, only four of NOPD’s eight Districts were able to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 307.
3. CD 308
Paragraph 308 of the Consent Decree requires that Task Force and narcotics supervisors work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance (i.e. when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill). The paragraph goes on to require that investigative unit supervisors work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap. Our review revealed NOPD was unable to demonstrate consistent compliance with this requirement. Most of the districts were unable to provide the Monitoring Team with work schedules for its “General Assignment” personnel. The materials we were able to review, however, suggested that investigators did NOT work the same days as their supervisors. Accordingly, NOPD has not demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
4. CD 309
Paragraph 309 requires that District Platoon Patrol supervisors be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill. Our audit revealed every NOPD district was in compliance with this requirement.
5. CD 310
Paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree provides that first-line patrol supervisors be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. On duty patrol supervisors must be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units. Our audit of district personnel records confirmed compliance with this requirement in most districts with respect to platoon officers. Personnel records provided evidence that each officer and supervisor was assigned to a single supervisor in most districts. Generally, there were at least three supervisors assigned to a platoon with 8 -12 officers. Some districts, however, were unable to produce sufficient records to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
With respect to “General Assignment” officers, again, several districts were unable to produce documentation demonstrating compliance with paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree. Moreover, when a General Assignments sergeant is not on duty, those detectives/officers are supervised by the platoon supervisor. Although we identified very few instances of a supervisor supervising more than eight subordinates during this quarter’s audit, there exists the possibility
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 41 of 69
Page 41 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
that there could be more than eight personnel reporting to one supervisor if the entire narcotics unit or task force unit worked while reporting to a platoon supervisor when there was only one platoon supervisor on duty. Overall, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree.
6. CD 311
Paragraph 311 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. Further, NOPD is required to ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and to reassign officers to a new permanent nonacting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks.
The Monitoring Team’s review found NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph. Specifically, our review revealed the Training Academy has not developed training or trained any personnel as acting patrol supervisors. Further, no program exists to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill in for assigned supervisors.
7. CD 312
Paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree requires that district commanders and platoon lieutenants be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command. Further, paragraph 312 requires that NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of the Consent Decree. Our review found that NOPD continues to be unable to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
As noted above, the supervisors’ activity reports we reviewed are not designed to capture information to provide this evidence. The supervisors’ activity sheets do not include direction they provided at roll call, any orders that were conveyed to officers, their expectations while interacting with the public, any counseling they provided, any disciplinary actions initiated, any complaints to which they responded, any monitoring of officer activity on calls for service or traffic stops, or other actions taken by a supervisor to ensure compliance with paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree.
Further, our review revealed police reports are not completed for every arrest. Supervisors need to review every report to determine the basis for the arrest and how it was completed. The lack of adequate supervisor reports prevents documentation of actions taken by a supervisor when they respond to the field to supervise including actions taken to address use of force incidents and citizens’ complaints.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 42 of 69
Page 42 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Failure to complete police reports for all arrests is problematic. Supervisors are responsible for monitoring a subordinate’s arrests, but the NOPD does not require police reports for all arrests. The NOPD explained they are only able to track their own arrests by obtaining information from the Sheriff’s Office. Systems should be in place to simplify a police officer’s duties. A complex system to determine if and how an arrest is documented complicates the officers’ duties and an auditor’s review of arrests. A simple system would be to make an arrest report when an arrest was made.
The Use of Force Reports we reviewed suffer from some of the same inadequacies as the arrest reports. Specifically, Use of Force Reports often lack sufficient detailed information to determine whether supervisors were at the scene of incidents, whether they conducted an investigation, and, if so, their assessment regarding the justification for the force used.
Among the external forces likely contributing to close and effective supervision is the non-existence of an effective Early Warning System (“EWS”). Without access to the information typically housed in an effective EWS, most NOPD supervisors cannot provide much information regarding their subordinates. Our audit revealed most supervisors are unable to relate the number for each subordinate of Use of Force Reports, vehicle collisions, citizen complaints, arrests, and other important performance measures. Some supervisors have performance files for each officer assigned to their platoon, but many do not. Providing close and effective supervision is difficult without adequate ability to assess performance.
8. Paragraph 313
Paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate.
Few documents were produced to the Monitoring Team over the course of this quarter that presented evidence of counseling or redirection, and even fewer documents were produced to provide evidence of disciplinary action to hold officers (or commanders and supervisors, for that matter) accountable for close and effective supervision. Most commands did not have a list of counseling memos or disciplinary actions initiated. Most commands referred the Monitoring Team to PIB to obtain any evidence of supervisors identified and effectively responded to misconduct.
Our audit of the several districts uncovered no documents that provided evidence supervisors were held accountable for performing their supervisory duties. Likewise, supervisors’ reports did not include information concerning orders relayed from higher authority, counseling provided to officers, direction to officers regarding engagement of the public, or discipline. Supervisors’ performance evaluations were generally not available, few counseling memos were available, and few disciplinary reports were available. Further, the performance
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 43 of 69
Page 43 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
evaluations the Monitoring Team viewed were not adequate to assess supervisors’ performance. The evaluations did not include a section to evaluate “whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations” as required by paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree.
B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training
1. CD 314
Among other things, paragraph 314 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. To its credit, NOPD did develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. The training, however, was implemented without a fully thought-out lesson plan. NOPD relied upon a lesson plan used by the federal government for training FBI supervisory agents, which had not been tailored for the needs of local police departments.
With respect to the specific minimum hours requirements set forth in the Consent Decree, NOPD was unable to provide documentation to demonstrate compliance with this requirement for all supervisors appointed prior to August 9, 2013. For supervisors promoted since, however, NOPD has demonstrated they received the required 160 hours of supervisory training.13
2. CD 315
Paragraph 315 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to provide supervisory training programs on a number of enumerated topics. NOPD was unable to provide documentation sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
C. Early Warning System
1. CD 316
Paragraph 316 of the Consent Decree requires the City and NOPD to develop, implement, and maintain an EWS to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible. The Consent Decree further requires that NOPD regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts.

13

The Consent Decree requires all current NOPD supervisors receive 200 hours of mandatory supervisory

training within two years of August 9, 2013.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 44 of 69
Page 44 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

While NOPD has selected a vendor to implement its EWS system, the Department is not yet in compliance with this requirement of the Consent Decree.14
2. CD 317
Paragraph 317 of the Consent Decree requires the City and NOPD agree to create a plan for the implementation of the EWS, which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS. The City and NOPD further are required to maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users. Our review found NOPD in partial compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
While the EWS has not yet been developed and implemented, NOPD has developed a plan for the implementation of the EWS. The Department also has hired an information technology specialist. Without an operable EWS, it can’t be determined whether there will be sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input, provide training and assistance to EWS users. NOPD is moving forward toward compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
D. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities (CD 327-331)
1. Introduction To Camera Audit
In its March 16, 2011 Findings Letter following its investigation of the NOPD, DOJ recognized NOPD had taken steps to implement technologies designed to promote constitutional policing and officer and citizen safety, including in-car video cameras. The DOJ found, however, that the cameras “are reportedly underused and, particularly with in-car cameras, often in disrepair. The DOJ recognized this as an issue of great importance not only to the community, but to the NOPD officers as well.
In its prior Quarterly Report, the Monitoring Team identified and reported on a significant number of non-functional in-car cameras. We described this as a particularly troubling finding in light of the critical role cameras play in providing transparency into a police department’s activities:
Our review this quarter revealed that, more than three years after DOJ expressed concern over the functioning of the NOPD’s in-car cameras, those camera[s] still often are in disrepair. Indeed, … our

14

Following an open national competition, the City now has selected a vendor to assist NOPD in designing

and implementing its EWS. The selected vendor has experience implementing Early Warning Systems in

other jurisdictions under Consent Decrees, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Oakland

Police Department. According to the NOPD, the City has negotiated a scope of work with the vendor, as

well as detailed pricing. The City reports project implementation is expected to begin in the first quarter of

2015.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 45 of 69
Page 45 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
review found that a significant percentage of the Department’s incar cameras were non-functional. This not only violates the Consent Decree, but it puts citizens and officers at risk. It also fosters an unhealthy cynicism among officers. For example, following the newer sergeants training regarding in-car cameras, several officers approached the Monitoring Team and described the training as “BS” because “the cameras never work anyway.”
Third Quarterly Report at 63. The U.S. District Court likewise found the Monitoring Team’s finding troubling and held a public hearing to discuss the issue and NOPD’s plans to implement prompt corrective action.
At the hearing, the new Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Harrison, acknowledged the problems identified by the Monitoring Team, and committed to make remediation of the problem a top priority of his Department. The Chief of the NOPD Compliance Bureau likewise took responsibility of the camera problem and ensured the Court his team would implement immediate corrective actions. Those corrective actions included quicker replacement of broken units, closer supervision by district personnel, more aggressive monitoring by the Compliance Bureau, and, importantly, an effort to upgrade NOPD’s camera servers, which appear to be responsible for a significant number of the non-functional cameras. In fact, on the day of the Court hearing, Superintendent Harrison informed the Court that three of the Department’s servers had failed just that morning.
In light of our findings last quarter, we expanded our focus this quarter to look not only at the functionality of in-car cameras, but also officer use of cameras. Specifically, during this quarter we examined the functionality and use of video recording devices currently deployed throughout the NOPD. We focused on the Department’s three primary outward looking (as opposed to, for example, in-station cameras) video recording devises – In-Car Cameras, CEW Cameras, and Body Worn Cameras:
• The Consent Decree requires NOPD to maintain and operate video cameras in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and to repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras as necessary for reliable functioning. (CD327) The digital mobile video audio recording devices (called “DMVARs” or, in plain English, “in-car cameras”), are to be activated for all traffic stops and pursuits until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the officer’s participation in the motor vehicle stop ends. (CD 328) The camera automatically begins recording when the officer activates the vehicle’s emergency lights and can also be activated manually by the officer, either on the camera control head or remotely from the portable microphone.
• CEWs are widely carried throughout the Department. Each CEW is equipped with a recorder that captures the audio and video of the event from the moment
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 46 of 69
Page 46 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
the officer turns off the safety. The Consent Decree (CD 328) requires the Department to ensure the audio/video recorder is activated as designed, i.e. when the safety switch is turned off.
• Body Worn Cameras (“BWC”) have been deployed throughout the Department since late May. Though not specifically mentioned in the Consent Decree, it does require that all “recordings are captured, maintained and reviewed.” (CD 327) BWC cameras have to be activated by the officer for the camera to record.
The scope of our review varied depending on the audio/video recording device. For the in-car cameras, we tested only the functionality of the cameras at this stage. We did so during visits to police districts specifically for that purpose, during announced and unannounced audits of supervisory requirements of the Consent Decree, and during ride-a-longs. Our tests included whether the camera turned on, whether it was capable of recording a video, whether it was linked to the server so that the recordings could be downloaded, what the remaining camera capacity was and whether vehicles assigned to patrol were equipped with a camera. During our review of Use of Force investigation reports we checked to see whether the report indicated an in-car camera recording was available and, if so, whether the investigating sergeant reviewed the video.
CEW videos were reviewed in conjunction with our review of Use of Force Reports. As reported elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, during this quarter we continued to review use of force events and supervisors’ investigations that are documented in Use of Force Reports. If the force used by the officer included discharge of a CEW, we checked to see whether the investigating sergeant reviewed the CEW video as part of his or her investigation. We also reviewed the video ourselves and compared it to the officer’s force statement, the Electronic Police Reports (“EPR”) associated with the event, and the sergeant’s Use of Force investigation report.
Our audit of Body Worn Cameras was more detailed. First, during our review of investigative reports prepared by field supervisors for uses of force such as a strike by impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head which is consider a serious use of force and requires an investigation by FIT), regardless of injury or where the subject is forcibly taken to the ground, we checked to see whether the officer was assigned a BWC, whether he or she activated it during the encounter with the subject as required by NOPD policy, and whether the investigating supervisor reviewed the BWC recording as part of the investigation. We also checked the BWC video database to locate videos of assisting and witness officers. When we found a video, we reviewed it and compared it to the officer’s force statement and the investigating supervisor’s Use of Force Report.
Second, we obtained a list of all domestic violence calls for service for the months of June, July, and August. From the provided list we randomly selected 20 events. We then obtained copies of the police reports and checked to see whether the assigned officer had recorded the event on a BWC video. When we found a video we compared the content of the video to the narrative of the police report.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 47 of 69
Page 47 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
We also randomly selected 20 officers, searched for police reports prepared by the officer, then checked to see whether there was a BWC video associated with the call for service in which the report was prepared. If a video was located we compared the video and the narrative of the report.
For each record included in our audit where we found a written report and an associated video, we read the complete written file and compared the available videos for each event. The variables included the following:
1. Is the sequence of events similar in the report(s) and video(s)?
2. The justification for the police encounter with the subject: CFS; Self-Initiated; or Flagged?
3. Was there evidence that force was used during the officer/citizen interaction?
4. If force was used, was there a force statement prepared by the officer?
For the purpose of the audit related to use of force events, the files reviewed consisted of, where relevant, officer’s force statements, Use of Force Reports documenting the supervisor’s investigation into the use of force, associated EPR, and any other reports about the incident that were available. Videos available on Evidence.com were observed for all of the incident numbers in each sample.
2. Camera Findings
a. Digital Mobil Voice Audio Recordings (In-Car Cameras)
According to information received from NOPD’s Compliance Bureau, there are currently 187 Department vehicles that should be equipped with in-car cameras. During this quarter we visited each of the eight districts, the canine unit, and Special Operation Division to check in-car camera units. We were able to check 116 of the 187 vehicles (62%).
Our audit showed that 82 of the in-car camera’s turned on and 34 did not. Seven cars that should have had cameras, based upon trip sheet records showing they were used by patrol officers, did not have in-car camera’s. We could not access five cars that had cameras, and therefore were unable to check their functionality.
Of the 82 cameras that did turn on, ten did not link to the server to download the videos, though the vehicle was checked at a place where the link should have been available. Two of those ten vehicles were at full capacity, a condition likely cause by the inability to link to the server (connecting to the server allows the camera to download the recording and clear the camera’s memory to allow for new recordings). Sixteen of the cameras that turned on were shown to be at full capacity. Six of those were assigned to the Eighth District, three were
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 48 of 69
Page 48 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

assigned to the Canine unit and are take-home vehicles, and two were assigned to SOD. We learned that the Eighth District continues to have problems establishing the link between the incar camera and server due to the placement of the receptor antennas and the allotted parking places for vehicles. We were also told that, even when the link is made, the server is often at full capacity and cannot accept any additional video downloads.

In-Car Camera Functionality
35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Camera Does Not Turn Camera Does Not Link Camera Capacity Full

On

To Server

In-Car Cameras

Figure 5
NOPD’s Compliance Bureau’s review of the in-car cameras found 68% (125 of 183) of cameras working. Our review found 57% of the 116 we checked fully functional: 82 that turned on less 16 that were full, leaving 66 fully functional. We acknowledge that the date of our checks are different and could account for the difference of our findings. Regardless, neither finding should be viewed as an acceptable level of operability for the NOPD’s in-car camera equipment.
We did not review any in-car camera videos associated with a police report. During the course of our audit, we were unable to locate any in-car camera videos associated with a use of force investigation. It is noteworthy that NOPD could not locate a single video recording outside the context of a use of force investigation wherein the contact did or may have started with a traffic stop (thus automatically generating an in-car camera recording).
And, though we also requested a listing of all traffic stops for the period of June 1, 2014 to August 30, 2014 with the intent of randomly selecting 20 traffic stops by Item Number, we
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 49 of 69
Page 49 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
were unable to find copies of reports associated with the traffic stops. After further inquiry we were informed that, while there is an Item Number assigned to each traffic stops, few result in a police report. The vast majority result in the issuance of a traffic citation, copies of which are not available in any NOPD database and, thus, not readily available for our review.
b. Conducted Electrical Weapon (“CEW”)
The Monitoring Team’s audit of CEW recordings occurred as part of our review of use of force investigations. There were 33 use of force events wherein the involved officer reported the deployment of a CEW. We were able to locate all but one of the associated videos. In two of the videos found, the recorder malfunctioned resulting in a video that was either of a duration of less than a second or just a recording of a trigger pull but no video.
In the Use of Force Report documenting the investigation for each of the 33 events, the investigating supervisor reports reviewing the CEW video in only 11 cases. In the other 21 cases there is no mention in the investigative report that the supervisor viewed the video and considered it in reaching his or her conclusion on the reasonableness of the use of force and use of the CEW. In one of the events, the investigating supervisor reported that the CEW malfunctioned and was not available for his review; yet, we were able to find and review the video. For a detailed breakdown of supervisor-reviewed CEW videos, please see Appendix 3.15

15

The Monitoring Team recognizes these findings could reflect a record-keeping problem rather than a

supervision problem, but it is NOPD’s burden to prove that to the Monitoring Team. Accordingly, the

Monitoring Team will continue to view the issue as a failure to supervise until the facts demonstrate

otherwise.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 50 of 69 Page 50 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Supervisor Review of ECW Videos

Unknown 38%

Reviewed 34%

Not Reviewed 28%

Figure 6
Our review of the videos associated with CEWs showed the following:
• A sergeant deployed his CEW three times in succession, each for a duration of five seconds, even after the subject was on the ground. The video did not capture the events leading up to the deployment nor the actions of cuffing the subject following the deployments.
• An officer deployed the CEW at the subject as he was at the top of a six foot fence, a deployment that is contrary to NOPD training.
• An officer deployed his CEW on a mentally unstable subject 4 times in succession, even after the subject was face down on the ground.
• An officer’s conduct warranted further action by the Department. Though the force eventually was deemed reasonable, the officer’s use of vulgarities and other inappropriate language was not.
When the Monitoring Team reviewed the last two videos with NOPD’s chief CEW trainer, he confirmed that the officers’ conduct was not consistent with department policy and training. These events were brought to the attention of the CEW coordinator at the Academy.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 51 of 69
Page 51 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In 29 of the 32 of the videos we reviewed, the sequence of events documented in the force statements are representative of the events seen in the video. However, the CEW videos generally were not helpful in confirming whether the initial contact by the officers of the subject were justified because the CEW video only activates when the officer draws the CEW and switches off the safety. In addition, because of the manner in which CEW’s are generally deployed, 10 of the videos failed to capture any warning by the officer. Generally, what is seen and heard is the subject actively resisting arrest by fleeing or threatening the officer and the officer commanding the subject to get to the ground and the officer issuing a verbal warning that he is about to deploy the CEW.
c. Body Worn Cameras
At initial deployment, BWC equipment was assigned with priority given to each of the primary patrol shifts in each district and other uniform operations assigned under the Field Operations Bureau. As of September 2014, NOPD reports there were 382 BWC cameras assigned to uniform officers: 298 to Patrol District officers, 10 to Gang Taskforce officers, 7 to Canine Unit officers, 12 to Mounted Unit officers, 29 to SOD Tactical officers, and 26 to Traffic Unit officers. There were an additional 20 BWC cameras shown as not yet assigned as of September 10, 2014. Officers assigned a BWC must wear it at all times while on duty.
NOPD policy mandates BWC activation in all investigative and enforcement contacts. Activation is required on all calls for service and in all field contacts involving actual or potential criminal conduct including: traffic stops, emergency responses, vehicle pursuits, suspicious vehicles, arrests and transports, vehicle searches, consents to search, physical or verbal confrontations or uses of force, pedestrian stops, domestic violence calls, SWAT deployments, and high risk warrant searches. Officers are required to turn on the BWC as soon as practicable at the onset of any such event and continue to record the event until its completion and they have left the scene. All BWC-equipped officers coming on the scene to assist the primary officer must similarly activate their camera. Although the policy identifies those situations in which activation of the BWC is required, an officer has discretion to manually activate the system any time the officer believes it would be appropriate or valuable to document an incident.
During the use of force investigation review component of the BWC audit, we found 18 use of force events that occurred on or after June 1, 2014. Forty-six officers were identified as participants in those events, 30 of them using force and 16 as witnesses to the use of force. Eight of the participants were sergeants, one a lieutenant, and one a detective. The figure below reflects our findings on BWC videos for those officers who were issued a BWC on the date of the event; that is, it excludes the eight sergeants, one lieutenant and one detective who were not issued BWC’s.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 52 of 69 Page 52 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Availability of Officer-Involved BWC Recordings

Recording NOT Available 54%

Recording Available
46%

Figure 7
The Monitoring Team performed a comparative assessment of the BWC videos with the associated case files to determine whether the nature and sequence of events in the written report was supported by the video evidence. The Monitoring Team reviewed 12 recordings (11 officerinvolved, one officer witness) covering ten unique events. Although the contents of the associated files varied, they generally included the officers’ force statements, the Use of Force Reports documenting the supervisor’s investigation into the use of force, associated ERP, and any other reports about the incident that were available.
Our review found that the contents of written reports were adequately supported by the video evidence for all 10 unique events. The Monitoring Team’s review of the associated case files also revealed that sergeants reviewed the BWC videos for 6 of these 10 unique events as part of their supervision duties.
To supplement our audit, we also reviewed 20 randomly selected calls for service involving domestic violence occurring in the months of June, July, and August. Of these 20 calls for service, we found and reviewed 17 police reports (we could not locate a police report for three calls). We then searched the video evidence database for BWC videos associated with the call for service and found video for only 7 of the 17 reported calls for service.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 53 of 69 Page 53 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Availability of BWC Recordings for Random Sample of Domestic Violence
Calls for Service

Recording NOT Available 59%

Recording Available
41%

Figure 8
We compared the content of the available videos to the narrative of the corresponding police reports. While the unavailability of 10 of 17 video recordings is troubling, of the seven we were able to find and did review, the contents of the police reports were consistent with the contents of the seven videos reviewed.
Finally, we also audited police reports from 20 randomly selected officers to determine if we could locate video recordings associated with those reports. We identified 24 police reports prepared by the 20 officers and only found a BWC video associated with the call for service for 13 of the 24 reports, as reflected in the graph below.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 54 of 69 Page 54 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Availability of BWC Recordings for Random Sample of Officer Reports

Recording NOT Available 54%

Recording Available
46%

Figure 9
Of the 13 videos reviewed: one was cut short by the officer and therefore did not record the important interview with the victim; another was started late and missed some important information; a third captured multiple incidents, not just the domestic violence call; and in two the report did not fully document all the information the officer obtained from the victim, as seen on the video. Nine of the videos show information consistent with the contents of the police report. None revealed any use of force by the officer.
* * *
The foregoing findings, obviously, do not yet reflect full compliance by the NOPD with the terms of the Consent Decree as they relate to cameras. First, BWC cameras continue to be unavailable in too many cases. Second, NOPD supervisors are not routinely reviewing videos. As we discuss elsewhere in this report, supervisors cannot perform “close and effective supervision” if they are not reviewing camera footage when investigating a use of force and when approving police reports resulting from a call for service. Third, NOPD’s current practices do not facilitate review of the videos. Specifically, we identified the following issues that should be the focus of additional training:
• Officers turn the BWC on too late. We found four cases where important parts of the officer/citizen contact were not captured on the video.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 55 of 69
Page 55 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• Officers do not clearly label (tag) the video in a way that facilitates locating it later for review. In addition to labelling the BWC video with an Item Number, the officer can draft and enter into the BWC video database information describing the nature of the call. The Monitoring Team’s review demonstrated that, fairly often, the summaries provided by officers do not provide any real detail as to the nature of the service call. For example, two of the most common descriptions used were “other call for service” and “traffic stop.” We found those labels incorrectly tagged to videos for domestic violence calls and service calls resulting in a use of force.16
• The Item Numbers associated with the video do not always match the Item Number of the police report. In at least five of the cases reviewed, the Item Number associated with the video was incorrect.
• Officers turn the BWC on too soon and leave it running too long. In several of the cases reviewed, the BWC was activated at the moment the call was received, resulting in a lengthy recording that captured the entire journey from the location the officer was when he received the call to the scene of the event. Likewise, the officer left the camera on while he left the scene and was sitting in his car writing up his report. In several cases, there were multiple 30 minute videos associated with a call for service. Although this is preferable to the officer turning on the camera too late, the Monitoring Team believes that effective training will result in proper use of the BWC technology.
We recognize the adoption and proper use of any new technology takes time, and imperfections are to be expected at the outset. As our findings relate to events taking place in July, August, and September, some of the non-compliance likely was the result of an understandable learning curve. While this does not excuse the non-compliance, it does explain it to some extent. Nonetheless, our review identified ongoing shortcomings in NOPD’s implementation of its cameras and several areas for improvement.
3. Conclusion Regarding Cameras Generally
As a result of the Monitoring Team’s and the Court’s focus on camera use and functionality, NOPD updated its policies and committed to more proactive monitoring of the Department’s compliance with that policy. Under the modified policy, NOPD expanded the category of officers who are required to wear BWCs. Specifically, the modified policy requires officers working in plainclothes, but in a proactive capacity, to wear BWCs. Additionally,

16

Subsequent to this reporting quarter, NOPD began developing a new program to enhance the “tagging” of

BWC videos. Once implemented, the new program should great enhance NOPD’s (and the Monitoring

Team’s) ability to identify and review video recordings.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 56 of 69
Page 56 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

NOPD has committed to require supervisors to conduct “random reviews of their subordinates to ensure recording accuracy and proper use of body worn cameras.” NOPD August 2014 Status Report to Judge Morgan. In addition, NOPD’s Compliance Bureau also committed to produce a weekly “Body Worn Camera Report” and share it with all District Commanders and District Systems Administrators to ensure accurate recording categorization and proper use. Finally, NOPD committed to share BWC reports with supervisors within the Operations Bureau so that they can compare their activity logs and video produced with the body worn camera to ensure they are being used properly. The Monitoring Team has incorporated these new commitments into its monitoring activities to ensure they are actually undertaken in practice.
4. AVL and In-Car Camera Functionality (CD 327)
No district could demonstrate that any of its AVLs were functioning.17 In contrast, the functionality of the in-car cameras varied by district. For a complete breakdown of the Monitoring Team’s in-car camera audit, please see Appendix 2.
The First District was unable to demonstrate full functionality of its in-car cameras. Moreover, the Monitoring Team found the documentation produced by the First District to be unhelpful in assessing compliance with the Consent Decree. The list of vehicles assigned to the First District provided by the District was incomplete and/or inaccurate. Specifically:
• The list identified 21 vehicles as assigned to the District, with several identified as being unavailable for inspection because they were off-site and out of service. One of the vehicles marked out of service, however, was parked on the street next to the District station. The car had a camera but the camera was not functioning.
• The Monitoring Team also identified five police cars parked in the vicinity of the station but not included on the list of assigned units. None of these five cars were equipped with cameras.
• Two of the vehicles listed as being out of service were used by officers during the period in which they purportedly were out of service.
The officer trip sheets we reviewed in the First District indicated several instances where in-car cameras were non-functional. Our review of the available cameras revealed that, excluding the vehicles marked out of service, there were 13 vehicles that should have operable cameras. Of those 13 vehicles, only seven vehicles had operable cameras. It also is worth noting that, according to NOPD records, most of these vehicles did not have operable cameras up until days prior to the audit. Had the audit been conducted one week prior, the compliance rate would have been 0% or close to 0%.

17

In early October 2014, NOPD rolled out a new AVL system designed to remedy the non-functionality of its

prior system. Subsequent to this reporting quarter, the Monitoring Team reviewed the new system and

confirmed its functionality.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 57 of 69
Page 57 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Notwithstanding the ongoing functionality problems we identified in the First District, we did note that a District supervisor had initiated two separate disciplinary proceedings after reviewing in-car camera footage. One concerned a use of force incident and one concerned a pursuit following a supervisor ceasing the pursuit. The action of that supervisor illustrates a proper use of camera footage for supervisory purposes.
The Second District also could not demonstrate full compliance with regard to in-car cameras. One unit we reviewed was unable to upload. It appeared to be recording but no recordings were logged from that unit. To NOPD’s credit, however, the problem was corrected by the end of the day, and Second District did demonstrate an overall compliance rate of 94%.
The Third District could not demonstrate full compliance. While the Monitoring Team was advised all in-car cameras were working, the first officer selected to demonstrate camera operation was unable to do so because his camera could not record. Moreover, our review of recordings from another police car began but ceased recording during the traffic stop prior to the officer getting out of his car.
We conducted a random review of vehicles in the Fourth District to evaluate functionality. First, we inspected the five cars assigned to “General Assignments.” Of those five cars, three had cameras, but only one was working. We then inspected four of the 20 platoon cars with cameras. Of those four, three had operable cameras even though the officer assigned to ensure the cameras insisted every camera was working. Not only was one of the car cameras non-functional, but it had stopped functioning days before our audit, but had not been reported immediately and was not promptly sent for repair as required.
The Fifth District was unable to demonstrate any of its cars had functioning cameras. On July 22, the District moved to its new location on North Claiborne. From that date through our audit in early August, there were no recordings downloaded onto the District computers. Indeed, notwithstanding a sergeant telling the Monitoring Team he regularly reviews in-car camera recordings as part of his supervisory responsibility, when asked to pull up a recording from August 5, 2014, he could not do so. The sergeant had to go back to July 21, 2014, to produce an in-car camera recording. The Monitoring Team understands, however, that the problems at the Fifth District have been resolved, and will confirm during our next in-car camera audit.
In the Sixth District, the Monitoring Team inspected ten platoon cars of which four had working cameras and three had non-functional cameras (three were unavailable for inspection because they were in the garage). The General Assignments unit had six cars assigned, five of which did not have cameras. The one vehicle with a camera had not downloaded video to the server since May 16, 2014, and the keys to the vehicle were not available to allow for a Monitoring Team inspection. Similarly, the General Assignments van camera was not working due to the storage device being at full capacity (demonstrating an inability to download to the server).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 58 of 69
Page 58 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team returned to the Sixth District to conduct a follow-up audit in September 2014. During that audit, we were told by the sergeant serving as our point of contact that platoon officers were required to use only platoon vehicles since those cars were the ones required to have cameras. Our review of the District’s Daily Activity Logs, however, revealed platoon officers did use non-platoon vehicles contrary to the representation of the sergeant. Indeed, we identified at least five cars used by patrol officers that did not have cameras.
Our September review revealed the Sixth District sergeants did occasionally review camera recordings. Specifically, we saw evidence of only seven reviews of the 320 recordings available during the period of our review. The Monitoring Team finds such a small number of reviews, approximately 2%, not to reflect the close and effective supervision contemplated by the Consent Decree.
In the Seventh District we identified 18 vehicles that should have had functioning cameras, but only ten of those cameras were functioning.
Finally, our review of the Eighth District revealed that no in-car cameras were uploading to the District server. Thus, none were recording video during the time of our review.
As a whole, the Monitoring Team finds the current status of NOPD’s in-car camera technology to be troubling and clearly not in compliance with paragraph 327 of the Consent Decree. Not a single district could demonstrate full in-car camera functionality (i.e., all cars had cameras installed, the camera turned on, it recorded video, and uploaded this video to the server). While the Monitoring Team is hopeful that increased funds dedicated to resolving these issues will improve the functionality of the technology, including the server issues, it will take a concerted effort by NOPD to bring the Department into compliance with paragraph 327.
5. Equipment Testing (CD 329)
Paragraph 329 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and CEW recording equipment to confirm it is in proper working order. As indicated in the Monitoring Team’s prior Quarterly Report, and as acknowledged by the NOPD at the public Court hearing held in September, NOPD has not been in compliance with this requirement for some time. Our review this quarter did not identify significant progress on this front. Indeed, while the NOPD Compliance Bureau expressed that testing has been scheduled for all subject equipment, our interviews with personnel in Districts 1, 2, 3, 8, and SOD revealed that personnel there were unaware of any departmental testing of AVL, in-car cameras, or CEW cameras. Moreover, the Monitoring Team was not provided with any documentation confirming such testing has taken place.
Following the Court hearing regarding camera functionality, and NOPD’s representation to the Court that it was committed to fixing all non-functional equipment, the Monitoring Team continued to conduct its district-by-district audits to evaluate the condition of the equipment. We discovered that equipment continues to be non-functional, including some equipment reported to
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 59 of 69
Page 59 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
the Monitoring Team to be working. Accordingly, NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
6. Supervisory Responsibility (CD 330)
Paragraph 330 of the Consent Decree requires that supervisors be responsible for ensuring officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, CEW cameras, and similar equipment, as required by NOPD policy. Supervisors further must report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed and refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, CEW camera, or similar equipment. Our review found NOPD to be in partial compliance with this requirement.
While some supervisors in some districts do check in-car camera use and functionality periodically, other supervisors in other districts clearly do not. Our audit of the Fifth District, for example, revealed that supervisors there were unaware that their cameras were not operable and had not been operable for approximately two weeks. Other districts produced logs showing some equipment reviews, but far too few to qualify as close and effective supervision. Although there were hundreds of recordings available to be reviewed, one platoon in one district could document only five reviews, another platoon documented only two reviews, and the third platoon failed to document any reviews.
Our findings with respect to supervisors reviewing the functionality of AVLs was similarly unimpressive. Some supervisors we interviewed acknowledged their AVL equipment does not work. Others conceded they had no idea whether it was working or not. Still others explained they did not know how to determine whether the equipment was working or not. NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this requirement.
We likewise did not identify any consistent means of evaluating the use or functionality of CEW cameras in the various districts. Indeed, several supervisors explained to the Monitoring Team they would not know if the CEW cameras are working until they have been used and the Academy personnel who monitor their use would advise them whether the cameras worked.
With respect to Body Worn Cameras, we have witnessed supervisors monitoring their officers’ use of Body Worn Cameras while in the field – i.e., by reminding officers to turn on their cameras and looking for the visual indicator that the camera was turned on. We also have observed officers reminding one another to turn on their cameras. We have not, however, seen a systematic effort to review BWC use and functionality by district supervisors. The lack of a review process makes it very difficult for NOPD to identify non-functioning equipment and/or officers who fail to use the equipment properly.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 60 of 69
Page 60 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. Handheld Recording Devices (CD 331)
Paragraph 331 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations. Our review found that many, but not all, districts comply with this requirement.
The platoon sergeants we interviewed in Districts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 all had ready access to their recorders, all knew how to use them, and all correctly explained when they were to be used. First and Seventh Districts, on the other hand, had been issued recorders, but clearly had not used them and did not know when to use them. Similarly, Second District had been issued a recorder and knew when to use it, but had never used it. NOPD is in partial compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
XVII. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT (CD 332 - 374)
The City continues to make progress toward fully complying with the Consent Decree’s secondary employment requirements. As of the conclusion of this quarter, all time-based details are being managed by OPSE. To ensure that NOPD members understood the requirements for secondary employment eligibility, Superintendent Harrison directed each NOPD member to be notified by e-mail and to sign and return a hard-copy of the e-mail. Officers are overwhelmingly complying with the policies governing secondary employment. There have, however, been reported instances of non-compliance by officers who accepted secondary employment jobs outside of OPSE. These incidents were reported to the PIB for investigation and any appropriate disciplinary action. We will continue to monitor compliance with secondary employment policies. It is important for NOPD members to understand that any found to be in noncompliance with secondary employment policies will be referred to NOPD’s PIB for investigation.
To respond to new information not available to the City when it entered into the Consent Decree, the City sought approval to modify certain of the Consent Decree’s secondary employment provisions. Specifically, the City sought to modify Consent Decree paragraph 348 to authorize the Court, instead of the City, to set the fee schedule for secondary employment. The City also asked the Court to establish additional tiers for secondary employment rates to enable OPSE to respond to changed market conditions. Specifically, potential customers were finding that rates under the existing rate structure at times were no longer sufficient to attract officers and the process for creating authorizing additional rates impractical. This created anomalous circumstances in which customers were willing to pay more to hire NOPD officers but were prevented from doing so. This situation frustrated the overall purposes of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team worked closely with the City to understand and evaluate the basis for its request and to ensure the proposed modifications would not undermine the core safeguards of the Consent Decree’s secondary employment provisions. In July, the Court approved the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 61 of 69
Page 61 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
City’s motion to modify paragraph 348. It also approved the City’s motion to establish additional pay rates and to establish a process by which the City could seek the Court’s approval for additional one-time exceptions to the new rate structure. The changes create additional secondary employment opportunities for NOPD members without undermining the Consent Decree.
The Court also approved temporarily suspending certain secondary employment provisions of the Consent Decree, as provided in paragraph 487, to accommodate unique circumstances of SMG, the public facilities management company that manages the Superdome and the Smoothie King Center, which are in many ways unique, due to the number of secondary employees hired, the nature of their responsibilities, and the demands of SMG’s customers, which include the Saints, the New Orleans Pelicans, and major event sponsors. The Monitoring Team worked closely with the City and SMG to understand the validity of the stated reasons for the request. The Monitoring Team concluded that due to the way the SMG uniquely manages its secondary employment, certain provisions of the Consent Decree could be suspended to allow SMG to continue to employ NOPD members, without compromising the Consent Decree’s underlying purposes and protections. It should be noted, however, that not all of the modifications sought by SMG or the City were approved. We are confident that the Consent Decree’s core requirements and SMG’s unique needs are appropriately balanced. The Monitoring Team would like to note its appreciation for SMG’s willingness to modify its hiring practices to support the Consent Decree’s goals. The people of New Orleans should know that SMG’s willingness to work with the City to enable it to continue to use NOPD officers reflects its commitment to being a good corporate citizen of New Orleans.
The City’s success in implementing the secondary employment system is being noticed. A Times-Picayune article reports that “after running a deficit in 2014, the Office of Police Secondary Employment expects to be self-sufficient in 2015 …” The article quoted OPSE Director John Salomone as stating, “A more flexible pay scale and an agreement with the firm that runs operations at the Superdome have boosted the number of officers participating in the program as well as the number of hours they are working.” As a result, the number of paid-detail hours being worked are approaching the number of hours worked before the DOJ issued its findings concerning the negative impact the unregulated secondary employment system had on law enforcement in New Orleans, according to Director Salomone.18
In the coming months, OPSE will undertake to assume responsibility for task-based details; those in which the pay rate is based not on the number of hours worked but the detail or task. Task-based details include motorcycle escorts and special events staffing and raise unique pricing and management issues.

18

See NOPD paid-detail system taking off, city officials say,” available at

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/nopd_paid-detail_system_taking.html (last viewed

November 12, 2014).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 62 of 69
Page 62 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVIII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION (CD 375-426)
A. Citizen Complaint Forms (CD 385 and 386)
Paragraph 385 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD and the City make “complaint forms and informational materials, including brochures and posters, available at appropriate government properties, including, at a minimum, NOPD headquarters, district stations, NOPD and City websites, City Hall, courthouses within New Orleans, all public libraries, the IPM, the Orleans Public Defenders, and at the offices or gathering places of community groups.” Our review of NOPD’s website confirmed the availability of an electronic citizen complaint form, which was found under a pull down menu for community services at www.nola.gov/nopd/citizen-services/complaints/. The web page instructs citizens that in addition to the electronic submission, a written complaint can be submitted to the Office of the Inspector General, the District Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and DOJ, and links to the website and a telephone number for each is provided. (Notably, the web page does not refer citizens to the IPM to file a complaint.) As well, the web page instructs citizens filing a complaint with any of these agencies to also send a copy to the PIB. In addition to the City’s general web site, we also confirmed the existence of an electronic citizen complaint form on NOPD PIB’s web site.
Our findings regarding the availability of citizen complaint forms and materials at the NOPD’s physical locations were less positive. We visited all NOPD districts, as well as NOPD Headquarters, the PIB, and City Hall.19 At each location, we requested from the desk personnel a copy of a citizen complaint form to report officer misconduct. Only PIB was able to provide a complaint form in response to our inquiries. Most other locations referred us to PIB. Two districts (2 and 6) offered to take our complaint orally by a ranking officer in the district, but could not give us a form by which we could submit the complaint anonymously. In all cases, our inquiries were responded to professionally.
In addition to the non-availability of citizen complaint forms at the various districts, we also noted the unavailability of any brochures, posters, or other materials advising citizens of their rights and/or the citizen complaint process. We did not identify any such materials in any NOPD or City location beyond the PIB. This finding is troubling not only because it is a violation of the Consent Decree, but because we have raised it with the NOPD on several occasions during our regular visits to the districts.
Closely related to the non-availability of citizen complaint forms and materials is the non-existence of a placard in each police facility describing the external complaint process. Paragraph 386 requires that NOPD “post and maintain a permanent placard at all police facilities describing the external complaint process. The placards shall include relevant contact

19

To conduct our audit of NOPD’s physical locations, we tasked two local citizens – a male and a female,

both middle-aged, African American, New Orleans natives – to visit the locations and make the necessary

inquiries using a prepared script.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 63 of 69
Page 63 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
information, such as telephone numbers, email addresses, and internet sites.” Our review this reporting quarter revealed not only that such placards do not exist at the eight police districts, they also do not exist at PIB or City Hall. As noted above, however, we did find the required information on NOPD’s and the City’s website.
B. Complaint Forms in Multiple Languages (CD 387)
Paragraph 387 of the Consent Decree requires that citizen complaint forms and related materials be made available and posted in Spanish, Vietnamese, and English. In connection with our audit of citizen complaint forms generally, we also reviewed the availability of non-English language materials. We found no Spanish or Vietnamese information regarding the citizen complaint process at any NOPD district, NOPD Headquarters, the PIB, or City Hall. When we inquired at each location regarding the availability of non-English forms, only PIB responded that the form could be translated at the request of a citizen. The other locations could provide no helpful information on the subject.
When asked about the process for non-English speaking Hispanic citizens to file a complaint, most locations were able to advise our auditor of the availability of a translation device and/or the ability to have a Spanish translator on the phone to assist with the complaint process either at the district station or at the PIB office. The representatives at one district, however, advised that they have no access to translation equipment and could not advise as to how non-English speaking citizens can file a complaint. Our review of the City of New Orleans’ NOPD website revealed the site’s multi-language translation capability (www.nola.gov/nopd/about-us/bureaus/public-integrity/) including the ability to translate the form.
C. Camera Discipline
At the public court hearing convened by Judge Morgan following the publication of the Monitoring Team’s last Quarterly Report, Deputy Chief Westbrook of the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau advised the Court 24 misconduct investigations were underway relating to camera misuse or non-use. As of the close of this reporting quarter, those investigations were ongoing and had not yet evolved to the disciplinary stage. The Monitoring Team plans to review every one of the 24 cases to ensure the issue of camera usage is given the significance it deserves.
XIX. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT (CD 427-443)
A. Availability of NOPD Audits and Reports (CD 427)
The Consent Decree requires that all “NOPD audits and reports related to implementation of this Agreement shall be publically available via website and at the Police Department, City Hall and other public locations to the fullest extent permissible under law.” (CD 427) Our review of NOPD’s website revealed access to information about the Consent Decree
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 64 of 69
Page 64 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
(www.nola.gov/nopd/nopd-consent-decree/), including a copy of the Consent Decree itself, copies of all three quarterly reports issued by the Monitoring Team, and a copy of the NOPD Biannual report. The site also has links to the Consent Decree Monitor website and to the webpage for the NOPD Consent Decree Compliance Bureau (www.nola.gov/nopd/administration/ bureaus/compliance/). While we believe NOPD still has room to build out and increase the usefulness of its site, we find the site, as it currently stands, to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team, however, did not find the same level of compliance with paragraph 427 at the various physical locations identified in the Consent Decree. We visited all NOPD districts, NOPD Headquarters, the NOPD PIB, and City Hall, and none was able to provide us a copy of the Consent Decree, or any Consent Decree related reports. Requests for Consent Decree materials at the Districts, Headquarters, and City Hall were referred to the NOPD website. While the referral is understandable and, perhaps, helpful for some citizens, the Consent Decree contemplates hard copies in physical locations, likely because all citizens do not have ready access to the Internet.
B. Availability of Policies and Procedures On NOPD Web Site (CD 428)
Paragraph 428 of the Consent Decree requires that each NOPD policy, procedure, and manual, including those created pursuant to this Agreement, be posted online and otherwise made publicly available, unless NOPD documents a reasonable security reason for keeping the policy, procedure, or manual private. As of the close of this reporting quarter, NOPD still had not complied with this requirement. While many NOPD policies still remain unapproved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team, those policies nonetheless continue to inform and guide officer conduct. The Monitoring Team believes citizens have a right to see the policies under which the NOPD is operating – whether those policies have been approved or not. Accordingly, we advised NOPD to expedite its compliance with paragraph 428.
On October 3, 2014 (just following the close of this reporting quarter), NOPD confirmed to the Monitoring Team it would post all operable policies – whether or not approved – to the Department’s web site as required by paragraph 428 of the Consent Decree. Because NOPD believes certain policies may have to be redacted for security reasons before posting (for example, perhaps a policy reflecting operational tactics relating to terrorism), the Department has initiated a review of all policies for that purpose. The Monitoring Team will review every redaction to ensure they are necessitated by a “reasonable security reason.” (CD 428)20

20

As of November 1, 2014, NOPD’s internal review was still ongoing and NOPD still had not posted its

policies online.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 65 of 69
Page 65 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XX. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT (CD 444 – 492)
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides that the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team and IPM communicated frequently during this quarter and coordinated their efforts to the extent practicable. The Monitoring Team continues to be impressed by the passion, dedication, and impact of the IPM; and recognizes the respect the organization has within the New Orleans community. The Monitoring Team and the IPM continue to work together on a joint analysis of racial profiling complaints filed with PIB, and are in the process of initiating other joint activities. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it receives from the IPM.
B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.”
As noted in the Monitoring Team’s prior two quarterly reports, “a fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.” Previously, the Monitoring Team found NOPD not in compliance with this requirement, but last quarter, the NOPD fully staffed the Consent Decree Implementation Unit, which brought the Department into compliance. The Monitoring Team continues to be pleased by the Unit’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process; and recognizes the full cooperation it continues to receive from the Unit.
C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD did cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting quarter.
The Monitoring Team also continues to receive the full cooperation of and continues to work closely with the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). While the OIG’s activities do not fall within our monitoring responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the OIG has kept us apprised of its audit plans as they relate to the NOPD. We continue to be impressed by the quality of the OIG personnel with whom we work and with the quality and thoroughness of the OIG’s work product. The Monitoring Team looks forward to an ongoing positive relationship with the OIG, and, in fact, is in the process of coordinating a joint project with the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 66 of 69 Page 66 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
OIG, which will focus on NOPD’s use of “Signal 21” codes to classify calls for service as a miscellaneous “complaint.” XXI. CONCLUSION
The Monitoring Team’s activities during this reporting quarter revealed NOPD still has a long road ahead to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. Significant deficiencies remain, which must be remedied. Training, supervision, and record keeping are just three areas that are in serious need of attention. There are more. As the Mayor recently reminded the public in the context of the OIG’s Sex Crimes Investigation, this is why New Orleans needs the Consent Decree. We agree. That being said, the progress NOPD has made in certain areas keeps us cautiously optimistic that NOPD is moving in the right direction. Our cautious optimism is bolstered by our several meetings with newly-appointed Chief Harrison, veteran Deputy Chief Westbrook (PIB), and newly-promoted Commander Williams (Training), among others. All three managers have made clear their commitment to the Consent Decree, to working closely with the Monitoring Team, and to implementing meaningful and lasting change within the Department. All three (and many others) readily have acknowledged the seriousness of the problems that need fixing and have taken ownership of those problems. We welcome Chief Harrison and his management team to their new position and look forward to working with them.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 67 of 69
Page 67 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XXII. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Interview Room Camera Functionality

District/Unit One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
Homicide Sex Crimes
SOD

Fully Functioning? No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 68 of 69
Page 68 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

District/Unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th SOD K9 SOD Tact Total

Vehicles Checked
27 27 10 32 14 31 21 13 6 6 187

Appendix 2 In Car Camera Functionality

Cameras Functioning Nonfunctioning

Checked Cameras

Cameras

12

7

5

16

16

0

3

2

1

15

8

7

12

10

2

16

6

10

17

12

5

13

10

3

6

5

1

6

6

0

116

82

34

Camera Failed to Link to Server
0 0
2 0 0
0 2 6 0 0 10

Camera Capacity
Full
0 1 1 0 1 0 2 6 3 2 16

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 421-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 69 of 69
Page 69 of 69 December 19, 2014 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 3
Cross Tabulations of CEW Recording Reviewed by Supervisor and Availability of CEW Recording (Incident-level)

CEW Recording Yes

N/A

N

%

Yes

N

%

No

N

%

Unknown

N

%

Total N

0

0.0% 11

36.4% 9 27.3% 12 36.4% 32

No

1 100.0% 0

0.0%

0 0.0% 0

0.0% 1

Total

1

3% 11

33.3% 9 27.3% 12 36.4% 33

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 119
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree April 28, 2015
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 119

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
April 28, 2015

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS QUARTER
• Continued to review and revise NOPD’s policies, several of which were approved
• Monitored newly created training programs at the Academy • Audited NOPD Canine Unit to determine compliance with the applicable
sections of the Consent Decree • Attended meetings of the newly-created Crisis Intervention Team
Planning Committee • Completed the first Biennial Survey and conducted a first-phase analysis
of the data collected • Reviewed and analyzed Use of Force reports • Conducted District-by-District and Unit-by-Unit compliance audits of
photographic lineups, custodial interrogations, supervision, camera use, technology functionality, and training • Met frequently with Sexual Assault Response Team, Independent Police Monitor, Public Integrity Bureau, Academy, and Compliance Bureau personnel
WHAT WE FOUND
• NOPD’s revised Use of Force policy meets the requirements of the Consent Decree and will help ensure constitutional policing
• Other policies approved by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team similarly will facilitate constitutional policing
• The Canine Unit has demonstrated compliance with some, but not all, of the applicable requirements of the Consent Decree
• The creation of the Crisis Intervention Team Planning Committee is a positive step toward compliance with paragraphs 111-121 of the Consent Decree
• The results of the Community Survey provide useful insight into police/citizen relations, but will be more valuable once those data are analyzed by demographic group
• While we have seen greater attention given to the NOPD Academy, we continue to see shortcomings in the Academy’s progress
• The Monitoring Team has not seen adequate evidence demonstrating NOPD’s hiring practices are designed to consistently hire qualified police candidates as required by the Consent Decree
NEXT QUARTER’S ACTIVITIES
• Provide Technical Assistance to the NOPD Academy to help the Academy draft compliant and effective lesson plans for its various training courses
• Audit the Public Integrity Bureau’s complaint intake and administrative investigation process
• Continue performing an in-depth analysis of NOPD’s supervision • Present current supervision findings at public court hearing • Drill down into Community Survey responses to analyze data by
demographic group

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 119 Page 3 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 119 Page 4 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 119 Page 5 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ........................................................................................................................ 3 II. Notes................................................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 9 V. Introduction to Quarterly Report....................................................................................................... 11 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities..................................................................................................... 16 VII. Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
A. Use of Force..............................................................................................................................................18 B. Domestic Violence .................................................................................................................................19 VIII. USE OF FORCE (CD 27-100).............................................................................................................. 22 A. Use of Canines .........................................................................................................................................22
1. Training and Certification......................................................................................................... 22 1. Search Triggering Event ............................................................................................................ 24
Table 1 – Initial Offense Suspected v. Offense Charged ......................................................... 25 2. Deployment Approval ................................................................................................................ 26
Table 2 – Presence of Approving Supervisor ............................................................................. 27 3. Warnings and On/Off Leash Searches.................................................................................. 28
Table 3 - Warnings & Off Leash Searches .................................................................................... 28 4. Apprehensions & Bites............................................................................................................... 29
Table 4 – Bite Ratio .............................................................................................................................. 30 5. Location of Apprehension......................................................................................................... 30
Table 5 – Apprehension Location ................................................................................................... 31 6. Deployment Outcome ................................................................................................................. 31
Table 6 – Outcome of Canine Search Requests.......................................................................... 31 7. Body Worn Cameras (“BWC”) ................................................................................................. 32 IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CD 111-121)................................................................................ 33
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 6 of 119
Page 6 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
X. BIAS FREE POLICING (CD 177-194) ................................................................................................. 34 XI. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS (CD 195-222)........................................................................ 35
A. SA and DV Policies .................................................................................................................................35 B. SA and DV Practices ..............................................................................................................................36 C. Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”) .....................................................................................37 D. NOFJC Program.......................................................................................................................................37 E. SA and DV Training ...............................................................................................................................37
1. Sexual Assault Training ............................................................................................................. 37 2. Recent SA Training Developments ........................................................................................ 39 F. Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Charging Conferences.............................................40 G. OIG Report Follow-Up..........................................................................................................................40 XII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CD 223-233)............................................................................... 41 A. Community Survey................................................................................................................................41 1. Community Survey Methodology .......................................................................................... 41 2. Community Survey Demographics........................................................................................ 42 3. Community Survey Findings.................................................................................................... 44 B. Detainee Survey .....................................................................................................................................48 1. Detainee Survey Introduction ................................................................................................. 48 2. Detainee Survey Demographics.............................................................................................. 49 3. Detainee Survey Findings ......................................................................................................... 49 XIII. RECRUITMENT (CD 234-244) ......................................................................................................... 55 XIV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING (CD 245-288).......................................................... 60 XV. Officer Assistance & Support (CD 289-294) ............................................................................... 63 XVI. SUPERVISION (CD 306-331) ............................................................................................................ 64 A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306-313) ..............................................................................................66 1. Paragraph 306 (Duties) ............................................................................................................. 66 2. Paragraph 307 (Assignments) ................................................................................................ 68 3. Paragraph 308 (Task Force/Narcotics Supervisors) ..................................................... 68 4. Paragraph 309 (District Platoon Patrol Supervisors).................................................... 69 5. Paragraph 310 (Patrol Supervisor Ratio)........................................................................... 69 6. Paragraph 311 (Acting Patrol Supervisor Training) ...................................................... 70
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 7 of 119
Page 7 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. Paragraph 312 (Commanders and Lieutenants) ............................................................. 71 8. Paragraph 313 (Holding Commanders Accountable).................................................... 71 B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training ...................................................................................72 1. Paragraph 314 (Supervisory Training) ............................................................................... 72 2. Paragraph 315 (Supervisory Training Program) ............................................................ 73 C. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities .............................................................74 1. Paragraph 327 (Operational Equipment)........................................................................... 74 2. Paragraph 329 (Testing Schedule)........................................................................................ 75 3. Paragraph 330 ............................................................................................................................... 76 D. Early Warning System (“EWS”)........................................................................................................77 XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION (CD 375-426)................................................................................................................................................................ 78 XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT (CD 444 – 492).................. 79 A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459) .....................................................................................................79 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)...........................................................79 C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)...............................................................................79 XIX. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 81 XX. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix 1 POLICE SURVEY RESPONSES ............................................................................................83
Table 7 - Distribution of Responses for Section 1: “Police Work and Your Working Environment” ......................................................................................................................................... 84 Table 8 - Distribution of Responses for Section 2: “Managers and Supervisors” ........ 85 Table 9 - Distribution of Responses for Section 3: “Personnel and Management Systems” ................................................................................................................................................... 87 Table 10 - Distribution of Responses for Section 4: “Community Policing and Police/Community Relations ........................................................................................................... 89 Table 11 - Distribution of Responses for Section 5: “Expectations about the Police Role” ........................................................................................................................................................... 92 Table 12 - Distribution of Responses for Section 6: “General Questions about the Public and the Department” ............................................................................................................. 94 Table 13 - Respondent Characteristics......................................................................................... 96
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 8 of 119 Page 8 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 2 COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA .............................................................................................97 Table 14 - Community survey respondent demographic characteristics....................... 98 Table 15 - Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction 99 Table 16 - Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD .............................................................................100 Table 17 - Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness..102 Table 18 - Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD............................................104 Table 19 - Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave .................................................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 20 - Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups ...................................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix 3 DETAINEE SURVEY DATA ............................................................................................... 107 Table 21 - Detainee survey respondent demographic characteristics...........................108 Table 22 - Detainees’ attitudes toward with NOPD officers (specifically) and police officers (generally) .............................................................................................................................109 Table 23 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful treatment .................................................................................................................111 Table 24 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD treatment of people from different races and genders...........................................................................................................................................113 Table 25 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD job quality .......................................................114
Appendix 4 CANINE DATA ...................................................................................................................... 115 Appendix 5 ADDITIONAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 117
Table 26 ..................................................................................................................................................118 Table 27 - Sample Goals by Race or Ethnicity and Gender .................................................119
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 9 of 119
Page 9 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DVU” “ECW” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 10 of 119
Page 10 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 11 of 119
Page 11 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. INTRODUCTION TO QUARTERLY REPORT
Prior reports of the Monitoring Team have taken NOPD to task for its slow, or sometimes nonexistent, progress in achieving full compliance with the Consent Decree. More recent reports have noted progress in some areas, but not in others. This Report presents a similar “mixed bag” of progress. Before getting to the contents of that “mixed bag,” however, a few words are in order regarding something positive; something that often gets overshadowed by the negative.
The Monitoring Team has been on the ground in New Orleans since August 9, 2013, and over the course of those 17 months, we have had countless occasions to observe and interact with NOPD officers in each of the City’s eight police Districts. We have ridden with officers and supervisors during all shifts, and personally have observed them interacting with citizens in all manner of situations. We also have observed citizen/police interactions without being seen by the officers involved, either as unidentified citizen “passersby” or by reviewing Body Worn Camera recordings.
One thing we have learned from these many personal observations is that the majority of NOPD officers are caring, capable, conscientious men and women who work day in and day out to make the NOPD a better department and New Orleans a safer place to live. Certainly, not every member of the NOPD is deserving of this characterization and certainly the NOPD continues to be saddled with institutional (and other) obstacles that render even the best officers less effective than they should be, but the dedication, passion, and effectiveness of so many officers should not be ignored.
Be it the lieutenant who held a young girl having an asthma attack in his arms while his partner kept the swarming Bourbon Street Mardi Gras crowds at bay until EMS arrived, or the patrol officer in the Lower 9th Ward who returned to a single mother’s house later in his shift to make sure her ex-boyfriend had not returned after an earlier encounter, or the canine officer who led a team down a neighborhood’s dark alleys in search of an armed fugitive, or the officer first on the scene of a recent triple shooting who pumped oxygen into a 10-year-old girl’s lungs while EMS tended to the gun-shot wound, or simply the Bourbon Street “promenade” officer who puts up with all manner of harassment from drunken visitors and reacts with patience and professionalism, NOPD officers every day perform great acts of bravery and simple acts of kindness. These officers and their contributions to making life better for the citizens of New Orleans should not be lost in the din created by the NOPD’s other problems or in the seemingly daily national stories of police officers and agencies that without question are worthy of our outrage. The Monitoring Team recognizes these heroic contributions, and continues to see evidence of them taking place every day.
Of course, the existence of great police efforts does not cause us to ignore the unrelated negatives we continue to identify in NOPD’s compliance actions or to “go easy” on the NOPD as an institution (or on any individual officer embracing a different ethic from those described above). Indeed, in many ways, the positives we see from most officers further fuel our desire to
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 12 of 119
Page 12 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
help NOPD identify and overcome the negatives. So, with that as background, here is a summary of what we found this quarter – both the positive and the negative.
On the positive side, NOPD continues to make progress in several areas, including the following:
• Several new policies have been developed, vetted, revised, and approved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team. These new policies comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and, as required by the Consent Decree, incorporate wellrecognized policing best practices.
• The NOPD training Academy has expanded its course offerings and implemented several new training programs taught by well-recognized national experts. The Monitoring Team has attended these new courses and has been impressed with the quality of the instructors, the instruction, and the materials.
• Body Worn Cameras have been deployed to most personnel handling calls for service. Further, NOPD has committed to expediting the deployment of BWCs to sergeants and lieutenants.
• Updated technology has been purchased to resolve the problems of non-functional in-car cameras previously identified by the Monitoring Team.
• NOPD’s Office of Police Secondary Employment continues to function as intended and continues to meet the needs of the New Orleans business community in compliance with Consent Decree requirements.
• NOPD’s Canine Unit has demonstrated compliance with some of the requirements of the applicable paragraphs of the Consent Decree.
• Some NOPD districts and units have restructured their record keeping practices to bring into compliance several key areas where they previously were deficient.
• NOPD has created a functioning Crisis Implementation Team Planning Committee charged with bringing the Department into compliance with Section IV.A of the Consent Decree. As described later in this Report, the Monitoring Team attended the inaugural meeting of this group and was impressed by the expertise, commitment, and energy of the participants.
Of course, as seems to be the Monitoring Team’s consistent refrain, all the news has not been so positive. Several police districts continue not to maintain adequate records to demonstrate compliance with a variety of Consent Decree requirements, many supervisors continue to lack the time, interest, and/or skill to provide close and effective supervision to their
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 13 of 119
Page 13 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
officers, and the Department has made very little progress in meeting any of its Officer Assistance & Support obligations.
Other areas of Consent Decree compliance continue to lag as well. The Academy, for example, continues to be a primary focus of the Monitoring Team – and of the Court. As the Monitoring Team described at a recent public Court hearing, the Academy continues to operate without approved lesson plans, a meaningful evaluation of its instructors, and a comprehensive “get well” plan. While NOPD described its efforts to turn the Academy around at the recent Court hearing, these efforts have not been fully implemented and, thus, have not yet resulted in tangible change. While the Monitoring Team has been impressed by the energy and commitment of the Academy’s new commander, compliance will be measured by results, not aspirations.
Moreover, NOPD must provide adequate support and resources to the Academy in order for it to be turned around as contemplated by the Consent Decree. So far, however, despite the increased focus on this issue by the Court and the Monitoring Team, we have not seen adequate progress. Simply put, the speed of NOPD’s progress in the training context is too slow.
Finally, other Consent Decree areas seem to command the NOPD’s attention only after being highlighted by the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team, however, will not be in New Orleans forever, and NOPD must do a better job taking the initiative to transform itself.
At the same time the Monitoring Team audits and evaluates NOPD’s compliance with the many paragraphs of the Consent Decree, we continue to meet with individuals and community groups to hear their concerns, discuss policing matters, and gain additional insight into the community’s view of the NOPD. (CD 461) In addition to these informal meetings, we also continue to hold public meetings following the issuance of our reports. The Monitoring Team’s last meeting was held at the Ashe Cultural Center on January 27, 2015, and was attended by more than 75 citizens. The information we learn at these meetings informs our ongoing monitoring efforts. An illustrative list of community input we received this quarter includes the following:
• Continued frustration with the pace of change.
As in prior community meetings, several community members expressed ongoing frustration with the observed pace of change. While the Monitoring Team shares the community’s concerns regarding the speed of change, the fact is that positive change is taking place. As noted, new policies have been developed, vetted, and approved. New training has been implemented. New leadership has been put in place. And new practices, protocols, and procedures have been rolled out. While these achievements, and more, are demonstrable positive developments, we share the community’s view that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” In other words, while we continue to see real progress being made, until that progress manifests
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 14 of 119
Page 14 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
itself in sustained constitutional policing on the street, we must view the progress with guarded optimism.
• Concern over the elimination of the college credit requirement for NOPD recruits.
Several citizens expressed great concern to the Monitoring Team over the NOPD’s decision to eliminate the 60-hour college credit requirement from its hiring standards. As described in greater detail later in this Report, the Monitoring Team shares this concern. While we do not believe college credits automatically makes someone a good police officer or that the absence of college credits automatically makes someone a bad police officer, we do know modern policing is complicated and calls for officers who are patient, sensitive, culturally aware, committed, and possess critical thinking skills. Many experts, including the Monitoring Team, believe at least some college improves the likelihood a candidate will have those traits. The Monitoring Team is closely reviewing the entirety of NOPD’s recruitment and hiring process to ensure the officers it brings on the force will be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
• Greater citizen visibility into NOPD’s activities.
One citizen at the public hearing recommended greater public visibility into NOPD’s activities, including access to all BWC recordings. While the Monitoring Team recognizes that (a) the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities,” and (b) some police agencies are testing the viability of making BWC recordings available to the public (Seattle, for example, is undertaking such a pilot program), the specific matter of public access to NOPD BWC video recordings is beyond the scope of the Monitoring Team’s authority.
• Greater visibility into citizen complaints against officers.
One citizen at the public meeting asked why the Community did not have access to an officer’s disciplinary file, or at least the ability to see what complaints have been lodged against an officer. As noted above, while the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities,” mandating accessibility to officer records is beyond the scope of the Monitoring Team’s authority.
* * *
Additionally, as it did last quarter, the Court held a public hearing to focus on the Monitoring Team’s findings. The February hearing focused on the NOPD Academy and training program, and was guided, in part, by information the Monitoring Team had collected from the public.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 15 of 119 Page 15 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team appreciates the comments received from the citizens of New Orleans and encourages others to share their views as well.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 16 of 119
Page 16 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This quarter, like the last, involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessments. Among many other things, our team spent the last quarter performing the following monitoring activities:
• We completed the Consent Decree’s first Biennial Survey, which incorporated a survey of more than 425 police officers, 57 detainees within the Orleans Parish Jail, and 549 households from across the community. (The results of this survey are presented later in this Report, and will be analyzed further and incorporated into future Reports as well.)
• We worked with the Department of Justice and the NOPD to review and revise NOPD’s policies to ensure full compliance with the Consent Decree and to incorporate best practices.
• We reviewed serious use of force reports, including the contemporaneous officer reports, supervisor reports, the subsequent FIT investigation file, and relevant video footage. Where we had questions or concerns about an investigation, we brought the matter to the attention of the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau and the NOPD Compliance Bureau. We then ensured NOPD took the necessary action to respond to and remedy, if necessary, any concerns.
• We conducted an evaluation of NOPD’s canine unit, including reviewing Canine Unit training, certifications, deployment reports, and associated case reports in light of the Consent Decree requirements and the current NOPD policy.
• We reviewed and monitored a number of ongoing PIB investigations.
• We conducted regular district-by-district and unit-by-unit audits of compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements relating to photographic lineups, custodial interrogations, supervision, camera use, technology functionality, and training.
• We attended Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”) meetings to assess and help facilitate the development of comprehensive sexual assault and domestic violence policies and procedures.
• We attended disciplinary hearings to evaluate the fairness of the hearing, the appropriateness of the discipline, and overall compliance with the Consent Decree. We met with the Independent Police Monitor in advance of significant disciplinary hearings and obtained the IPM’s view of the matter to ensure the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 17 of 119 Page 17 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
view is adequately considered by the Deputy Chief or Commander conducting the hearing. • We gave significant attention to the NOPD Academy, meeting with the new Academy commander, his direct reports, and several instructors on multiple occasions. We also personally observed training at the Academy, as well as outside training conducted by experts in various fields, including recently implemented instructor training conducted by the FBI. Additionally, due to the importance of training and criticism the Monitoring Team has leveled against the Academy in the past, U.S. District Court Judge Morgan visited the Academy to meet with its new leadership, tour the facility, and personally observe new-recruit training. • The Monitoring Team observed NOPD officers and supervisors in the field, in all districts and during all shifts. We did this on weekdays and weekends. We also personally observed NOPD handling its major events, including Superdome events, Mardi Gras, and other City-wide festivals. • We continued our assessment of PIB’s handling of citizen complaints alleging racial profiling. As discussed in greater detail later in this report, the Monitoring Team is conducting this assessment in conjunction with the IPM. And finally, as we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team spent time meeting with and listening to the parties to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ. We also continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Team, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor’s team.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 18 of 119
Page 18 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. POLICIES
The process of reviewing and revising NOPD’s policies to ensure they meet constitutional standards and reflect best practices continues to be a time-consuming challenge. Drafting policies that also communicate effectively and succinctly requires meticulous care. Compounding the challenge is a constant need to ensure uniformity and consistency where definitions, procedures, or responsibilities touch different policies.
While earlier reports have criticized NOPD’s approach – includes its past approach of separating policies and procedures into separate documents – we more recently noted process improvements have expedited the goal of drafting and implementing Consent Decree compliant policies. Those changes have begun to bear fruit. The following policies were approved in the 4th quarter:
• Use of Force Generally
• Use of Force Reporting and Investigation
• Misconduct Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations
• Domestic Violence
• Employee Conduct: Minor Violation/Infraction
Two of the revised policies, Use of Force and Domestic Violence will significantly impact the community and warrant further discussion.
A. Use of Force
NOPD’s use of force policies are extensive and set forth in multiple and related policies. For example, the NOPD’s basic use of force policy is now set forth in Chapter 1.3 (formerly Policy 300). The policy governing investigation of an officer’s use of force and policies governing specific applications of force, such as vehicle pursuits, canine, etc., are set forth in subsidiary policies. Because these policies rely upon the definitions and provisions of Use Of Force Chapter 1.3, the parties focused on first revising the basic policy and then revised the Use of Force Reporting and Investigation policy. Upon approval of those two policies, we turned to the following related policies: (1) Vehicle Pursuits; (2) Canine, (3) Use of Force Review Board, (4) Conducted Electrical Weapons (commonly referred to as Tasers), (5) Firearms Training and Qualification, (6) Scenario-Based Firearms training, (7) Handcuffing and Restraints, (8) Control Devices and Techniques, and (9) Ammunition. Approval of these policies should occur in the next quarter. Upon release, the policies are posted and are publicly available on the NOPD’s website.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 19 of 119
Page 19 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Obviously, drafting Consent Decree compliant use of force policies is and will be a significant and consequential achievement. The NOPD’s use of force was a major focus of the Department of Justice’s Findings Letter as well as a major concern within the New Orleans Community. The revised use of force policy responds to deficiencies identified in the DOJ Findings Letter, satisfies the requirements of the Consent Decree, and reflects current law enforcement best practices. The language concerning justifications for the use of force was revised to more accurately reflect constitutional standards and requirements. For example, the revised policy clarifies that whether a given use of force is constitutional is determined by whether the use was “objectively reasonable” under standards articulated by the Supreme Court rather than simply reasonable in the judgment of the officer using the force.
The revised policy also provides clearer definitions and guidance concerning levels and types of force. A graphic depicting the Use of Force Continuum was revised to more accurately illustrate the appropriate response to a given level of resistance. The requirements and guidance included in the policies also were reordered sequentially, making them easier to follow and more useful as a reference. The revised policies also ensure responsibility for complying with a requirement under the policy is explicitly assigned to a designated individual, which will promote accountability. The policies also emphasize the roles and responsibilities of officers witnessing a use of force, including the obligation to intervene to stop an inappropriate use of force, as well as supervisor’s responsibilities in responding to a reported use of force.
Importantly, the policies emphasize the necessity of using de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to force. For the first time, NOPD policy provides that,
[w]here consistent with protecting the safety of the officer, the subject, or the public, officers shall use de-escalation techniques to avoid or reduce the need for the use of force. (Emphasis added.)
Overall, combined with quality training and supervision, the revised policies should protect both NOPD officers and the public by (1) reducing the frequency with which force is used as well as reducing the level of force used in a given encounter, and (2) improving reporting, tracking and oversight of uses of force.
B. Domestic Violence
The domestic violence policy is the product of a community-wide effort by partners involved in the New Orleans Blueprint for Safety, a DOJ-funded collaboration of City and community stakeholders that joined to develop a coordinated criminal justice response to domestic violence. According to the DOJ,
[t]he Blueprint for Safety is an approach to domestic violence cases that coordinates agency responses around the shared goals of safety and Justice . . . . The whole point of the Blueprint is to
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 20 of 119
Page 20 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
make sure that we’re keeping victims safe and holding offenders accountable.
Bea Hanson, principal deputy director of the Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice, assisted the NOPD in drafting a domestic violence policy that now reflects a national model for response to domestic violence. Prior to beginning the drafting process, this group identified existing responses to domestic violence, reviewed police reports, rode along with NOPD patrol officers, listened in on 911 calls, and interviewed NOPD officers about the Department’s domestic violence policies and practices. The revised policy incorporates the Blueprint for Safety foundational principles which include: adhering to an interagency approach and collective intervention goals; building attention to context and severity of abuse into each intervention; and, recognition that most domestic violence is a patterned crime requiring continuing engagement with victims and offenders. It also emphasizes the importance of the initial response to a domestic violence incident. It explains that a single incident of domestic violence is usually part of a patterned use of coercion, intimidation, and the use of threat of violence – namely battering. It outlines steps the responding officer must take to lay the foundation for each subsequent intervener.
The NOPD domestic violence policy now delineates commissioned member’s duties from the initial response through the follow-up investigation. The new policy provides guidance to the Communications Division and incorporates an updated Standard Operating Procedure for call-taking and dispatch. It provides a domestic violence patrol checklist to guide the responding officer’s handling of a domestic violence incident. The checklist, when used by the officer on the scene, is an effective tool in performing a “primary aggressor” assessment to make more appropriate and effective arrest decisions.
The new policy is victim-centered and specifically guides the NOPD responder in ways to deal effectively with a victim of domestic violence. It provides officers detailed guidance for conducting domestic violence risk assessments. The policy strongly discourages “dual arrests” for domestic violence incidents. It provides guidance on proper collection of evidence and specific information on the signs and symptoms of strangulation. The policy requires a report to be made for all domestic violence investigations regardless of whether an arrest was made. Officers are also required to complete the new NOPD Domestic Violence Patrol Report Checklist (Form #46) and injury documentation on the Domestic Violence Supplemental page.
Also new, should the officer believe the parties do not meet the relationship criteria for intimate partners, family members or household members, the policy provides the officer shall obtain supervisory approval to proceed with the investigation as a non-domestic incident. Conversely, should the officer believe the parties DO meet the relationship criteria for a domestic violence incident, but the incident has not been classified as a domestic violence incident, the officer shall notify dispatch to change the signal code to a domestic incident.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 21 of 119 Page 21 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The policy provides the Domestic Violence Unit is responsible for follow-up investigations of felonies, certain misdemeanors, and certain cases where the offender has left the scene. The DVU has a new Standard Operating Procedure that was improved to include the requirements of the new policy. In sum, the revised policy incorporates best practices for responding to domestic violence, provides clearer guidance to officers, equips them with more resources to support the victims of domestic violence, promotes improved coordination between the NOPD and victim support organizations, increases consistency, limits discretion and provides for greater supervisory oversight.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 22 of 119
Page 22 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VIII. USE OF FORCE (CD 27-100)
As noted in prior Reports, the issue of appropriate use of force is critical to Constitutional policing. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team focuses on this important issue every month. We review policies, attend training, review Use of Force Reports, review FIT files, and watch contemporaneous video recordings of NOPD use of force events.
In this report, we focus on NOPD use of canines, which is a component of use of force. Our next report will focus on a different component of use of force.
A. Use of Canines
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to implement canine policies and procedures that comply with the law and the requirements of the Consent Decree, and that comport with best practices and current professional standards. Late in 2014, the Department presented a revised draft canine policy that was approved in early March and is expected to be released to officers in May. Meanwhile, as part of our monitoring activities, we reviewed canine unit training, certifications, deployment reports, and associated case reports in light of the Consent Decree requirements and the current NOPD policy.
1. Training and Certification
Paragraph 48 of the Consent Decree requires the Department to establish and maintain a canine certification program that ensures: (1) canines and their handlers demonstrate control and proficiency in specific, widely accepted obedience and criminal apprehension exercises; (2) canines and their handlers receive a minimum of 16 hours of training every four weeks; (3) the trainer keeps detailed records of whether each canine team has met specific control criteria for each control exercise, and what remedial training was given if a canine team was deficient in any area; and (4) the trainer reports all deficiencies to the unit supervisor. Each canine team must be certified annually by a nationally recognized trainer or organization. NOPD has not demonstrated full compliance with this paragraph of the Consent Decree.
The training and certification records of each handler and each canine are maintained in a separate file as are the training and certification records of the lead trainer. Records indicate all but one of the handler/canine teams have been certified annually by an outside certification agency. Records of this year’s certification were found in each handler’s training records file.
NOPD utilizes two different nationally recognized certification agencies – the National Narcotics Detection Dog Association (“NNDDA”) and the National Police Canine Association (“NPCA”) – to ensure canines and handlers demonstrate control and proficiency in specific, widely accepted obedience and criminal apprehension exercises. During one visit to SOD, the Monitoring Team observed three teams take and pass NNDDA’s drug detection dog certification test.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 23 of 119
Page 23 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

According to NOPD, a handler/canine team will not be deployed unless its certification is current. The Monitoring Team reviewed each handler’s training records and determined all handler/canine teams currently being deployed as patrol dogs have been certified annually by NPCA. Although each handler/canine team possessed the annual certification, the Monitoring Team found two teams failed the recall exercise in the criminal apprehension phase of the certification.1 This is a significant shortcoming as the ability to recall the canine can be a major factor in reducing bites. The Monitoring Team strongly recommends the canine unit’s trainer work with the two teams to ensure that the handler can recall the dog when necessary.
In addition to the basic certification, weather permitting, NOPD holds in-service training once a week on Tuesday mornings for the handler/canine teams, meeting the requirement for 16 hours of training per month. We observed this training on several occasions in 2014 and reviewed the training records maintained by the canine trainer. We found the training records contain limited detail on the content of each training session and on the performance of each canine team. In light of our finding that two of the canine teams failed the recall exercise of the criminal apprehension grouping of the NPCA certification test, evidence that these deficiencies were addressed during the weekly training sessions should have been found in the training records, but was not. Due to these deficiencies, we cannot find NOPD in complete compliance with paragraph 48 of the consent decree.
We noted in a prior Report that a canine team comprised of the unit’s most junior handler with a recently acquired canine failed to meet certification requirements. Our current review found that same team has not been retested by NPCA and has not met the certification requirements. The Monitoring Team was advised the handler/canine team is not being used in canine deployments. Our review of the 66 deployments in 2014 verified this team was not used.
Paragraph 49 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to employ a qualified trainer who is capable of providing certified canine training. NOPD has been able to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph. The current department trainer, Harold Chambliss, is a certified handler who also has been assigned his own dog. Mr. Chambliss also is certified as a trainer by K-9 Concepts, Inc., based in Broussard, LA. Mr. Chambliss completed a 320-hour instructor’s course for the training of police patrol and detection dogs in 2010, and 40-hour instructor retraining course in police patrol and narcotics detection in 2011. Copies of the certifications were found in his Canine Unit personnel file.

1

The patrol dog certification conducted by NPCA consists of 16 exercises in four groupings that test both

the handler’s ability to control the dog and the dog’s obedience, behavior, and stamina. The obedience

section consists of tests on healing, turning, drop off, and stay on gunfire. Both the area search group and

the building search group consist of tests assessing the handler’s deployment tactics, his ability to read the

canine’s behaviors as indicators of present of subject, his tactics, and the canine’s behavior when a subject

is found. The criminal apprehension section tests the handler’s ability to recall the dog and the dog’s

obedience to the command to release the bite. For a more complete description of the certification process

and include tests see the National Police Canine Association Standards for Training & Certification,

revised – August 14th, 2014.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 24 of 119
Page 24 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The NPCA Standards for Training & Certification Manual does not set out retraining requirement for canine trainers. The NPCA manual does, however, require certifying officials to attend a re-training course once every three years. Considering the dynamic nature of police work, the changes in case law related to use of canine, and evolving best practices in the use of police canine for apprehensions, we encourage the NOPD to send its in-house canine trainer to a re-training course at least once every three years. The course should include a legal update on the use of police canines. Furthermore, though the unit is relatively small, the Department should anticipate the retirement of the current trainer and prepare someone to assume the trainer role when he leaves. Becoming a certified canine trainer is a multi-year process. In identifying the best trainer candidate, the Department should develop desired traits and selection criteria, involve ranking members of the Department, and consider including a respected local veterinarian and a community member as part of the selection review board. Because training records maintained by the trainer contain limited detail on the content of each training session and on the performance of each canine team, we find that NOPD has demonstrated only partial compliance with paragraph 49 of the Consent Decree.

1. Search Triggering Event

NOPD policy limits canine deployments to those situations where there is reasonable belief “that the individual has either committed or threatened to commit any serious offense and if any of the following conditions exist:

•

There is a reasonable belief the individual poses an imminent threat of violence or

serious harm to the public, any officer or the handler.

•

The individual is physically resisting or threatening to resist arrest and the use of a

canine reasonably appears to be necessary to overcome such resistance.

•

The individual is believed to be concealed in an area where entry by other than

the canine would pose a threat to the safety of officers or the public.” NOPD

Policy 318.2.

In addition to looking at the event that precipitated the deployment, the Monitoring Team also examined the canine deployments for factors that contributed to the apprehensions resulting in a bite. Consent Decree paragraph 43 requires handlers only allow their canines to engage a subject by biting if: (a) the subject’s actions pose a risk of imminent danger to the handler or others; a risk of serious harm to the canine; or the subject is actively resisting (active resistance does not include concealment and refusal to surrender without more) and (b) the handler is in visual and auditory range of a subject, except where the subject is hiding in a confined space (e.g., a crawl space) and refuses to surrender, or escaping. Handlers will not allow their canine to engage a subject by biting if a lower level of force could reasonably be expected to control the subject or allow for the apprehension. As previously stated, NOPD’s canine policy, in place during the period of this audit, was not a policy approved by DOJ or the Monitoring Team.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 25 of 119
Page 25 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Thus, canine supervisors and handlers were not given Consent Decree-compliant guidance on when deployments can occur and how handlers should control their dog when conducting the search. NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with the requirements of paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree.

NOPD’s deployment reports include information on what triggered the police interaction
with the subject, including what the subject was wanted for and whether or not there was information the subject was or might be armed. We found in the 66 deployment reports we reviewed, 16 subjects were suspected of violent felonies and 17 others were believed to be armed. Encounters between a subject and a police officer are initiated in many ways. The officer may learn a subject is wanted for a past crime, or may observe the subject committing a crime. Where an encounter ends in an arrest, the cause of the arrest may or may not be the same as the cause of the initial encounter. The following table presents data on the initial offense that caused the officer to focus attention on the subject in the first place, and the offense with which the subject ultimately was charged:

The deployment and associated item reports include information on what triggered the police interaction with the subject, including what the subject was wanted for or suspected of, and whether or not there was information the subject was or might be armed. We found in the 66 deployment reports we reviewed, 16 subjects were suspected of violent felonies and 17 others were believed to be armed. Encounters between a subject and a police officer can be initiated in many ways. The officer may learn a subject is wanted for a past crime or may observe the subject committing a crime. Once the officer focuses attention on the subject, a series of events often follow ending in arrest. The following table presents data on the initial offense that caused the officer to focus attention on the subject, and the offense the subject was charged with when apprehended.

Table 1 – Initial Offense Suspected v. Offense Charged

Initial Offense Suspected

Offense Charged

Agg.

Att. Armed Residence Possess

Assault Murder Robbery Burglary firearm

Auto Burg

Auto Theft

Resisting TOTAL

Aggravated Assault

2

1

0

0

0

0 0

0

3

Armed Robbery 0

0

2

0

0

0 0

0

2

Attempt Murder 0

1

0

0

0

0 0

0

1

Auto Burglary 0

0

0

0

2

1 0

0

3

Residential Burglary

0

0

0

1

0

0 0

0

1

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 26 of 119
Page 26 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Initial Offense Suspected

Offense Charged

Agg.

Att. Armed Residence Possess

Assault Murder Robbery Burglary firearm

Auto Burg

Auto Theft

Resisting TOTAL

Carjacking

0

0

0

Drug Violation 0

0

0

Illegal Carrying 0

0

0

Stolen Vehicle 0

0

0

Suspicious Behavior

0

0

0

Traffic Violation 3

0

2

TOTAL

5

2

4

0

2

0 0

0

2

0

1

0 0

0

1

0

3

0 0

3

6

0

0

0 4

0

4

0

6

0 0

0

6

0

1

0 0

0

6

1

15 1 4

3

35

2. Deployment Approval
The Consent Decree requires a canine handler obtain approval from an on-duty or on-call supervisor prior to conducting a search for a subject. If the handler is unable to contact a Canine-unit supervisor, the handler must get approval from the watch commander before the canine can be deployed. In 2014, the NOPD Canine unit responded to 84 requests to assist in locating and apprehending a subject. Sixty-six were approved for search; 18 were not. We reviewed the deployment reports of 66 of the searches, including all deployments that resulted in an apprehension, with or without a bite.
The Canine Unit is a sub-unit of the Special Operations Division (“SOD”). As previously reported, because there is only one sergeant assigned to the Canine unit, the Department decided to train all sergeants assigned to SOD and require handlers to obtain approval first from their sergeant, and if not available, then from an on duty SOD supervisor. If neither is available, the handler must get approval from a district watch commander or supervisor. Of the 66 deployment reports we reviewed, 75.8% were approved by either the Canine unit sergeant (36.4%), the SOD Captain to whom the canine sergeant reports (21.2%), or a trained on duty SOD supervisor (18.2%). Fewer than 5% were approved by a District watch commander and 18.2% were approved by a District sergeant (Table 1).
Providing specialized training to the SOD supervisors is a noteworthy practice. If the training is well designed and delivered, it should improve the quality of the decisions made by
the supervisors. Missing from NOPD’s files, however, are the instructional lesson plans and the attendance records. As with any training provided to members of the Department, a lesson plan should be prepared by the instructor. It should be in the approved format and subjected to the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 27 of 119
Page 27 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

same review and quality control as other training courses. Furthermore, as is the case for other in-service training, attendance records should be maintained. The canine unit supervisor was unable to provide any of these documents.
When the canine supervisor was on duty but not available to respond to the scene, the handler would contact him by phone to obtain approval. The same practice took place when an on-duty SOD supervisor was not available at the scene of the event. As depicted in Table 1, the handler contacted a Canine Unit or trained SOD supervisor by radio for approval rather than obtain the approval from an on scene district supervisor in 25 deployments. A Canine Unit or SOD supervisor was unavailable and the approving district supervisor was on scene in the 16 deployments where the handler obtained approval from a district supervisor.
Because NOPD policy requires that trained SOD supervisors or District watch commanders approve deployments when the Canine Unit supervisor is unavailable and because the training provided to the SOD supervisors is not properly documented with an approved lesson plan and attendance records, we cannot find NOPD in compliance with Paragraph 41 of the Consent Decree.
Table 2 – Presence of Approving Supervisor

Approving Supervisor’s Unit Searches Approved Percent

On Scene Percent

Canine

24

SOD Captain

14

On Duty SOD

12

District Lieutenant

3

District Sergeant

12

Not identified in report

1

Total Deployments Reviewed

66

36.4% 21.2% 18.2% 4.5% 18.2% 1.5%

15

62.5%

4

28.6%

6

50%

3

100%

12

100%

1

100%

40

60.6%

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 28 of 119
Page 28 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

3. Warnings and On/Off Leash Searches
Paragraph 42 of the Consent Decree requires, prior to a search, the handler must “issue three loud and clear warnings that a canine will be deployed and advise the subject to surrender, unless such warnings impose an imminent threat of danger to the canine handler or other officers on scene. A canine handler must allow a sufficient period of time between each warning to provide a subject an opportunity to surrender.”
As Table 3 details, of the 66 deployments reviewed, the handler gave the required warning in all but one case. That case involved a search for a subject who shot at the police as the subject was fleeing. In the handler’s deployment report, he states “that, due to the severity of the crime the subject was wanted for,” he did not give any warning. The deployment report indicates the canine sergeant was the approving supervisor and on the scene, but it does not indicate the handler advised the supervisor of his decision to deploy the dog without giving a warning and that the sergeant gave approval to the decision. The subject was eventually located by the canine and taken into custody with a bite. He was charged with two counts of attempted murder and with possession of a firearm by a felon. Although the facts demonstrate the handler made a reasonable and justifiable decision to unleash the canine without giving the required warning, the deployment report did not document any approval received from the sergeant.
Table 3 - Warnings & Off Leash Searches

On Leash

Off Leash

Warning Given

65

98.2%

1

1.8%

Warning Not Given

1

0

TOTAL

66

1

Consent Decree paragraph 39 limits “off-leash canine deployments, searches, and other instances where there is an increased risk of a canine bite to a subject to instances in which the subject is wanted for a violent felony or is reasonably suspected to be armed based upon individualized information specific to the subject.” The current NOPD policy, Policy 318.2, includes the same limitation. In only one deployment was a canine released from the tracking leash. In that case, the search started out on lead. The handler was informed that the subject was observed by two officers at different points in the preceding foot pursuit to have a gun in his hand as he fled from them. During the search, the canine alerted to some brush. The handler, concluding the subject was hiding in the brush, gave verbal commands to the subject to surrender. The subject chose to jump up and flee toward a wooded area. The handler released his dog from the leash, letting the dog apprehend the subject by bringing him to the ground. The
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 29 of 119
Page 29 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
subject sustained bites to the right shoulder and left thigh. He was treated at the hospital for his injuries. He was charged with aggravated assault and carrying a weapon.
4. Apprehensions & Bites
Consent Decree paragraph 51 requires NOPD “to track canine deployments and canine apprehensions, and to calculate and track canine bite ratios on a monthly basis to assess its canine unit and individual canine teams.” The bite ratio is computed by dividing the number of apprehensions by the number of bites. The NOPD Canine Unit prepares a monthly and annual report tracking deployments, apprehensions and bites by handler/canine team. The Consent Decree gives guidance on how the bite ratio should be used by the department to manage its use of canines, and paragraph 52 requires the department to include bite ratios as an element of the Early Warning System, which is not yet in place. It requires the Department to review the performance of any handler whose bite ratio exceeds 20 percent in any six-month period, or if the unit’s bite ratio exceeds that threshold, and to require interventions as appropriate.2
In 2014, the Canine Unit assisted in the apprehension of 35 subjects (Table 4). Twentythree of those apprehensions occurred without a bite. Twelve of the apprehended subjects were bitten by the dog. All 12 were treated at the hospital for their injuries. Thus, the Department had an overall bite ratio of approximately thirty-four percent. The following table presents data on apprehensions for individual canine teams and the unit overall.

2

It should be note that in compliance with the Consent Decree NOPD revised its policy to redefine a bite as

any physical contact between a canine’s teeth and a person or animal regardless of whether the skin is

punctured or lacerated. Under the prior policy a “bite” was defined as a puncture or laceration of the skin.

Thus, the revised policy broadens the definition of a bite, which will increase the number of bites reported

but will result in a more comprehensive understanding of apprehensions and bites.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 30 of 119
Page 30 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4 – Bite Ratio

Handler/Canine

Jan-Jun

Jul-Dec

Overall

Apprehend Bite % Apprehension Bites % Apprehend Bite %

Team A

6

2 33%

7

1 14.3% 13

3 23.1%

Team B

1

1 100%

1

0 0

2

1 50%

Team C

2

2 100%

0

0

-

2

2 100%

Team D

3

1 33%

2

0 0

5

1 20%

Team E

6

3 50%

5

1 20%

11

4 36.4%

Team F

0

0 -

2

1 50%

2

1 50%

Team G

0

0 -

0

0

-

0

0 -

TOTAL

18

9

17

3

35 12 34.3%

As the data indicate, the unit’s overall bite ratio and the bite ratio of all but one handler exceeds 20 percent. Although weapons were recovered in 16 of the 29 incidents that resulted in the 35 apprehensions, and 8 of the 12 bites occurred to subjects apprehended in tight crawl spaces, the overall bite ratio of 34.3% should cause NOPD to review each handler’s search tactics and ability to control the canine. Furthermore, the newly approved Use of Force Policy 1.3 requires, when feasible, canine handlers to consider area containment and waiting out a subject in order to reduce the number of apprehensions resulting in bites. This new requirement should be presented in the weekly Canine Unit training without waiting for training on the new Use of Force policy in the Department’s in-service training.
5. Location of Apprehension
The Consent Decree recognizes that certain circumstances increase the chance the dog will bite the subject. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team looked at where the subject was found by the canine. The following table provides information on where the subject was located when apprehended. 66.7% of the bites occurred to subjects found hiding in a crawl space.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 31 of 119
Page 31 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5 – Apprehension Location

Apprehension %

Bite

%

Commercial Building

3

8.6%

2

16.7

Residential Structure

1

2.9%

0

0

Open Field/Brush/Woods

7

20%

1

8.3

Crawl Space

22

62.8%

8

66.7

Other

2

5.7%

1

8.3

TOTAL

35

12

6. Deployment Outcome
As depicted in Table 5, 66 of the 84 requests for assistance to locate and apprehend a subject resulted in searches and 18 did not. Apprehensions were made in 29 of the searches; 6 resulting in the apprehension of 2 subjects. Weapons were recovered in 16 of the searches with apprehensions. Four weapons were recovered in 4 searches that did not result in an apprehension.
Table 6 – Outcome of Canine Search Requests

Outcomes of Requests for Searches for Subjects

Apprehension

29

34.5%

No Apprehension

37

44.1%

Not Deployed

18

21.4%

TOTAL

84

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 32 of 119 Page 32 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. Body Worn Cameras (“BWC”) Since early May 2014, members of the Department were issued body worn camera and are required to activate them each time officers respond to a call for service or interact with the public. We looked for corresponding body worn camera videos in our review of the canine deployment reports. Thirty of the 66 deployments we reviewed occurred after deploying body worn cameras. We found body worn camera videos covering 27 of the 30. We were unable to locate a video in three of the deployments. In one case, the video captured the handler’s exchange with the requesting officer but went dark before the search commenced. The last thing seen on the video is the handler donning his protective gear. It is apparent the gear blocked the cameras video recording. However, the audio of the entire search was captured by the BWC. BWC videos present valuable evidence of what occurs in police-citizen encounters. They are useful supervisory tools, as is evidenced by the Department’s requirement that supervisors review BWC videos when conducting use of force investigations or allegations of misconduct. The Department also requires supervisors to conduct weekly randomly BWC video reviews of their subordinates. The Monitoring Team found several instances where the canine handler’s body worn camera video was not associated with the correct item number. There are many reasons why this could occur, and most are not the fault of the canine handler. For example, the Monitoring Team has observed several instances where multiple item numbers are associated with a single event, leaving involved officers to choose one of several options. The Department has recognized this problem and is currently in the process of obtaining software that will link dispatch data to BWC records. Hopefully, this will alleviate the problem.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 33 of 119 Page 33 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CD 111-121) Section IV of the Consent Decree deals with the establishment of a Crisis Intervention
Team (“CIT”) within the NOPD. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”), a CIT program is a “local initiative designed to improve the way law enforcement and the community respond to people experiencing mental health crises.” The Consent Decree requires NOPD to stand up a CIT and implement an effective crisis intervention structure in order “to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.”
In our last report, we found NOPD had made almost no progress toward complying with its CIT obligations during the reporting period. We noted, however, “subsequent to this reporting period, the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit, with the urging of the Monitoring Team, has begun pushing NOPD forward in this area.” Specifically, we noted “a Crisis Intervention Team Planning Committee has been formed and plans to meet in January 2015.” OCDM December Report at 10.
As promised, NOPD stood up its CIT Planning Committee and held a kick-off meeting in early 2015. The meeting was facilitated by Mr. Danny Murphy of NOPD’s Compliance Bureau, and was attended by NOPD managers, EMS professionals, two judges, Coroner Jeffrey C. Rouse, M.D., senior management of the Metropolitan Huron Services District, and a number of community health care experts. The Monitoring Team attended the meeting and was very impressed. We were impressed by the turn out; the knowledge, experience, and commitment of the participants; and, frankly, the energy of the meeting. While mindful of the old adage “well begun is half done,” the Monitoring Team believes NOPD’s CIT effort is off to a promising start. NOPD, however, clearly needs to make up for lost time. We are hopeful the Department takes advantage of the current level of energy and moves forward toward compliance in this area with great speed. At the moment, though, notwithstanding promising progress, we must continue to find NOPD not yet in compliance with its Consent Decree obligations.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 34 of 119 Page 34 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
X. BIAS FREE POLICING (CD 177-194) Section VIII of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to deliver police services that are
equitable, respectful, and bias-free in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in the Department. As part of a broad-based review of NOPD’s compliance with the Bias Free requirements of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team initiated an audit in connection with the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”) focusing on racial profiling.
The joint Monitoring Team/IPM project involves listening to a sample of citizen complaints presented to the NOPD PIB to identify those that alleged racial profiling. The joint team then reviewed the associated PIB intake report to determine whether PIB’s coding of the complaint is consistent with the complaint itself. In other words, we are looking to see if complaints alleging racial profiling are being coded as something other than racial profiling.
The Monitoring Team also is using this joint project as an opportunity to evaluate whether complaining citizens are being treated properly by the PIB. By listening to the intake recordings, we can assess whether citizens are being discouraged from pursuing their complaints or otherwise are being intimidated or coerced, whether officers are being respectful, and whether the NOPD is complying with its obligations under the Consent Decree regarding the complaint intake process.
Due to the importance of this project, the Monitoring Team expects to issue its findings as part of a special interim report in the future.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 35 of 119
Page 35 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS (CD 195-222)
The Consent Decree encompasses a wide variety of issues relating to NOPD’s handling of sexual assault and domestic violence matters. The Consent Decree requirements are farreaching, encompassing NOPD’s policies, practices, training, record keeping, supervision, and more. The Monitoring Team continues to evaluate NOPD’s progress in all of these areas. Before getting into those activities, however, an initial observation is in order. And sadly, it is an observation we have made in the past.
In our prior report, we offered the following comment regarding NOPD leadership in the area of sexual assault and domestic violence matters:
[We] note the NOPD Sex Crimes Unit has had at least four different leaders over the course of the past 14 months. This constant change in leadership has made it extremely hard for NOPD to focus on remedying the problems identified by DOJ and meeting the requirements imposed by the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team believes such management inconsistency reflects a lack of focus – or perhaps even a lack of commitment – to this critical topic by NOPD leadership. We hope we are wrong, but until we see evidence otherwise, we will continue to find NOPD not in compliance with the Consent Decree in this area.
Unfortunately, the past few months have not given us any reason to change our view. In fact, NOPD once again is changing its Special Victims Section leadership. The commander, who had led the Unit only since September 2014 was moved out of the Unit earlier this month. NOPD reports there will be other changes as well. While NOPD very well may have valid reasons for making the change, one should not think such changes come without cost in terms of consistency, energy, and progress. As we said last month, the Monitoring Team continues to be concerned over ongoing management inconsistency. We are hopeful this most recent change will constitute a lasting fix.
With that as background, the following sections summarize NOPD’s and the Monitoring Team’s activities in the areas of sexual assault and domestic violence over the past few months.
A. SA and DV Policies
Over the course of the last few months, the Monitoring Team has worked closely with NOPD to facilitate the final approval of its domestic violence policy. The Monitoring Team shared best practices and recommendations to ensure the final policy was comprehensive, practical, and effective. We met with nationally known domestic violence experts, victim advocacy groups, the Department of Justice, and NOPD leaders on a number of issues, including critical foundational matters, such as whether the Department’s policy should be “mandatory
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 36 of 119
Page 36 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
arrest” (as it was) or “pro-arrest (as is the current best practice).3 The final pro-arrest policy was approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice in February 2015.
Supplementing the new DV policy, NOPD Superintendent Harrison issued a special order in late 2014 focusing on DV responsibilities of officers and supervisors. The special order was accompanied by a new reporting form (NOPD Domestic Violence Patrol Report Checklist) developed to assist officers in collecting the proper amount of information on the scene of a domestic violence event. The new form is to be filled out by officers on the scene and added as addendums to their police reports. The Monitoring Team has incorporated a periodic audit of the new forms into its ongoing monitoring.
NOPD currently is working to complete its sexual assault response policy. The original goal for finishing this policy was December; however, as of the March publication of this Report, the draft is incomplete.
B. SA and DV Practices
Beyond the sexual assault and domestic violence policies described above, the Monitoring Team continues to monitor NOPD’s practices regarding responding to and investigating both areas. To ensure NOPD’s policies and training were being implemented in practice, the Monitoring Team initiated random reviews of domestic violence reports and BWC videos. We review the written materials to assess the correct use of victim terminology and whether the reports present a fair representation of the actual scene. We review the videos to evaluate NOPD’s treatment of victims reporting domestic violence. We also compare the written reports to the videos to ensure the reports are complete and accurate.
The Monitoring Team also meets frequently with members of the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office to discuss domestic violence issues and to obtain their views as to whether NOPD is adhering to internal procedures. For example, the Monitoring Team, along with the DA’s office, regularly reviews the number of “dual arrest” reports submitted by NOPD personnel, high numbers of which could suggest a violation of the Consent Decree. As we reported in the past, neither the District Attorney’s Office nor the Monitoring Team has seen a high number of such arrests.

3

As the name implies, a “mandatory arrest” policy is one where a police officer must make an arrest where

probable cause exists that an offense has been committed. In contrast, a “pro arrest” policy is one where a

police officer is encouraged to, but is not required to, make an arrest where the offense is minor in nature

and the use of discretion by a police officer is in the best interest of the victim. The Violence Against

Women Act (“VAWA”) of 1994 explicitly endorsed a mandatory arrest policy. In 2005, however, the

reauthorization of VAWA moved from a mandatory to a “pro-arrest” stance. Currently, the best practice

among most police departments is to adopt a “pro arrest” policy for domestic violence matters.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 37 of 119
Page 37 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”)
NOPD continues to be an active participant in SART, New Orleans’s implementation of a nationally recognized Sexual Assault Response Team. The purpose of the SART program is to help communities, like New Orleans, develop and implement “a coordinated, multidisciplinary, and victim-centered first response to victims of sexual assault.” The Monitoring Team attends SART meetings along with NOPD personnel, and so far we have been pleased with the efforts of the SART group, although, as in most areas of the Consent Decree, we would like to see greater speed in achieving its goals.
The SART has been active in NOLA since February 2013 and has facilitated positive interaction among community members, experts, and NOPD to develop a community-wide response to sexual assault matters. These interactions have borne fruit. The recent media attention about rape victims being charged for ER exams, for example, came directly from SART partners exchanging information and reaching out to those who can change the laws.
The Monitoring Team continues to observe SART’s activities and continues to be impressed with the knowledge, energy, and commitment of the SART participants. Its ability to achieve meaningful and broad-based success, however, has been slowed by the frequent changes in NOPD Special Victims Section leadership noted above.
D. NOFJC Program
The New Orleans Family Justice Center “is a partnership of agencies dedicated to ending family violence, child abuse, sexual assault, and stalking through prevention and coordinated response by providing comprehensive client-centered, empowerment services in a single location.” NOPD continues to support a number of NOFJC programs through its involvement with SART. NOPD’s domestic violence detectives, for example, work closely with the NOFJC and, from the Monitoring Team’s observations, play an integral part in NOFJC’s daily operations. NOPD should be commended for its efforts in this regard.
E. SA and DV Training
In part as a result of the Monitoring Team’s and the NOPD’s Compliance Bureau’s continued focus in this area, coupled with last year’s disturbing OIG report on sex crime investigations, NOPD announced toward the end of 2014 it would enhance its sexual assault and domestic violence training for officers, supervisors, and commanders. The following subsections summarize our review of NOPD’s recent training.
1. Sexual Assault Training
In November 2014, the Monitoring Team attended training for investigators and officers handling sexual assault investigations in and around New Orleans. The training, held at the New
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 38 of 119
Page 38 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Orleans Child Advocacy Center, was made available as a result of a grant awarded to the New Orleans SART program by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The training materials used in the class were created by the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force (ORSATF), a nationally known leader in this area. The Instruction was provided by contractors from Oregon who are active law enforcement command staff officers and recognized experts in sexual assault investigation.
This class accommodated approximately forty participants and was offered to a variety of local police agencies, including NOPD. NOPD sent six detectives assigned to sex crimes investigations, including its newly appointed (but recently departed) Commander, two detectives assigned to child abuse and domestic violence investigations, two homicide detectives, eight officers assigned to various NOPD police Districts, and one detective assigned to ISB. The Monitoring Team reviewed the training materials and attended the training, and was impressed.
The instruction incorporated video recordings, a terrific PowerPoint presentation, and handouts. The class was provided a lesson-plan booklet with presentation notes, which allowed students the opportunity to pay close attention to the instructors. The instructors used adult learning techniques, incorporated many examples of fact-based scenarios, and covered both stranger and non-stranger sexual assault investigations. The instructors used humor when appropriate to keep the class interested, and were at all times professional and skilled in their instructional delivery. This instruction covered all elements of Consent Decree sections 204 and 205 relative to training.
Among the many important topics covered by the Oregon training were the following:
• Understanding and evaluating seeming inconsistencies in victim statements. The instructors described common victim reactions to trauma and explained how trauma can impact a victim’s perception of his/her experience. The instructors walked the class through the dynamics of victim trauma and explained its impact on memory, which prompted more than one senior investigator taking the class to remark he wished he had been taught this years ago. The instructors even provided webinar information on neurobiology of trauma for those interested in learning more on the topic.
• Myth-busting sexual assault statistics. The instructors explained national research has shown less than 10% of sexual assault complaints are proven to be false. This statistic, and others, helped the class differentiate myth from fact. According to the instructors (and the Monitoring Team’s own years of experience), police officers often have a view that sexual assault complaints are credible less often than they often are. Much of this misunderstanding is due to not understanding the reasons for inconsistencies in victim’s initial statements.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 39 of 119
Page 39 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• Accuracy of sexual assault statistics. Sexual assault is highly under-reported. According to some statistics, 65% of sexual assaults are not reported to police.4 The instructors spent a lot of time describing the barriers to reporting and explaining why law enforcement needs to be victim-centered rather than the cause of a victims’ secondary victimization. The videos and class interaction used during this component of the course were extremely effective in helping officers understood potential casus of police bias.
• Investigations. The instructors described what to look for in a serial sex offender investigation. They covered the interview and interrogation of sexual offenders and pointed out clues for detecting deception. They made it clear all reports of sexual assault should be considered truthful, unless the investigation and evidence prove otherwise. The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the investigation establishes no crime was committed or attempted. It is not proper to unfound a case solely because a victim recants. For students interested in learning more about this important topic, the instructors shared “The Undetected Rapist” study conducted by Dr. David Lisak5 and provided additional information for students to follow-up on this research after class.
• Stranger vs. Non-Stranger Sex Offenders. The instructors discussed differences between stranger and non-stranger sex offenders. The instructors spent a lot of time on the credibility of subjects versus victims, and shared real-life investigations experiences to enhance the class and make their instruction more interesting.
In short, as noted above, the class was excellent. The Monitoring Team is hopeful NOPD finds a way to embed the Oregon program – or at least the substance of the Oregon program – into its annual training curriculum. To that end, on November 19, 2014, NOPD held a meeting to plan an internal train-the-trainer session within NOPD based upon the Oregon model. The Monitoring Team will be following the progress of that effort.
2. Recent SA Training Developments
In the fall of 2014, NOPD announced it had secured the services of subject matter expert Tania Tetlow to provide enhanced sexual assault training as part of NOPD’s in-service training program. Ms. Tetlow is a well-recognized expert in the areas of sexual assault and domestic violence, instructing both civilians and law enforcement across the country, in addition to

4

Berzofsky, Marcus, Christopher Krebs, Lynn Langton, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, NCJ 238536, Nearly 3.4 Million Violent Crimes Per Year Went Unreported to Police from 2006

to 2010, August 9, 2012 (2015), <http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4962>.

5

See Lisak, David, Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists, Vol. 17, No. 1.

Violence and Victims (2002).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 40 of 119 Page 40 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
prosecuting cases and holding a tenured position of professor at Tulane Law School. The course will be taught in partnership with NOPD Officer Corey Lymous, a detective within NOPD’s Sex Crimes Unit. The NOPD Compliance Bureau and the Monitoring Team have reviewed the proposed course materials, and both groups will review the lesson plan and presentation materials before this course is implemented.
F. Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Charging Conferences
As part of our monitoring of NOPD’s handling of sexual assault investigations, the Monitoring Team periodically meets with members of the Orleans District Attorney’s Office and attends DA sexual assault charging conferences. These meetings and observations help the Monitoring Team assess the quality and completeness of NOPD’s investigations, which, while they are better than they have been in the past, still leave room for improvement. For example, the District Attorney’s office still often has to conduct its own investigation to obtain sufficient information before proceeding to trial.
G. OIG Report Follow-Up
As we noted last quarter, and as was widely reported in the media, the New Orleans Office of Inspector General published a report in November 2014, in which it highlighted many significant deficiencies in NOPD’s Special Victims Section processes, including the noninvestigation of cases by NOPD detectives. As a result of the OIG’s findings, NOPD Superintendent Harrison appointed Commander Paul Noel to oversee a Task Force to look into incomplete investigations. The Monitoring Team reviewed the training provided to the Task Force members (which we found to be solid) and receives regular updates from Commander Noel. Additionally, along with the New Orleans OIG, we will have full access to the Task Force’s files to ensure the reinvestigations are unbiased, complete, and effective.
Through our oversight of Commander Noel’s Task Force, the Monitoring Team raised concerns regarding what appeared to be a large number of unprocessed Sexual Assault Kits (“SAKs”). While some (or even many) of these unprocessed SAKs may be from investigations where processing was not appropriate, the seemingly high number of unprocessed kits has not yet been adequately explained to the Monitoring Team. At the request of the Monitoring Team, the NOPD Compliance Bureau is working to obtain more definitive data, which then will be validated, tested, and analyzed by the Monitoring Team.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 41 of 119
Page 41 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CD 223-233)
Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” To meet this requirement, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the Department of Justice to develop a three-part survey that would measure public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters. The surveys were designed to include a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. (CD 231)
The first phase of the survey was conducted in 2014 and included more than 400 police department sworn officers and supervisors. Members of the Monitoring Team personally administered the survey to police officers in their duty locations. Officers were requested to complete a 95-item questionnaire before leaving the room and the completed questionnaire was handed directly to the Monitoring Team member administering the survey in an envelope. The responses then were coded and analyzed by the Monitoring Team. The aggregated findings of the Police Officer Survey were set forth in Appendix 1 to the Monitoring Team’s previous Report. For the convenience of the reader, and so all results can be viewed together, the Police Officer Survey results have been reprinted in this report as Appendix 1.
This past quarter saw the completion of the two additional phases of the Biennial Survey – the Community Survey and the Detainee Survey. The Community Survey was conducted door-to-door by local residents trained and overseen by the Monitoring Team. The Detainee Survey was conducted in the Orleans Parish Prison by senior members of the Monitoring Team with the permission and cooperation of the Orleans Parish Sherriff. Details regarding our methodology and the aggregate raw results of each survey can be found below and at Appendices 1 - 3. What follows here is a summary of our findings. Before considering these findings, though, it is important to keep in mind our survey measures perceptions – not facts. For example, a detainee’s view of NOPD conduct may or may not reflect the reality of that conduct. Any number of factors could affect the detainee’s response. Understanding a detainee’s perception, however – just like understanding an officer’s perception and a citizen’s perception – is an important component of the survey project. Measuring changes in perception over time gives the Monitoring Team and the NOPD an additional data element with which to assess the effectiveness of the various requirements of the Consent Decree. Additionally, identifying perceived problems allows the Monitoring Team to focus its resources to determine whether the perceptions equate with reality.
A. Community Survey
1. Community Survey Methodology
To conduct the Community Survey portion of the Biennial Survey and to ensure it reflected the demographics of New Orleans as a whole, the Monitoring Team identified a sample
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 42 of 119
Page 42 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

of housing units, with one adult interviewed per household. Since we were sampling households, our process employed what is known as a “multi-stage random area sampling process.” In plain English, this means the Monitoring Team identified its sample in stages, starting with specified geographical areas, and then were divided into smaller, more targeted geographic groupings, and then, finally, were divided into individual households. Each stage was based upon random sampling.
The Monitoring Team’s goal was to conduct face-to-face interviews at 600 New Orleans homes across twenty of the City’s neighborhoods. We assumed a response rate of 50 percent due to vacancies, refusals, or non-availability of respondents. Accordingly, we selected a sample of 1,200 households as our starting point. To achieve a sample of that size, we randomly selected 60 households per selected neighborhood to survey. 6
To ensure the representativeness of our survey sample, we looked to New Orleans’ population figures (for residents 18 years or older) as set out in the 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates of New Orleans. The demographic goals for the community survey can be found at Appendix 5 of this Report. Additional details regarding our methodology can be found at Appendix 5.
The survey was administered by local residents trained by the Monitoring Team. The training was comprehensive and took place over several days. The last training date was December 3rd, 2014. Each survey was administered by a team of surveyors. A total of 57 surveyors participated in the project. Of these, most were recruited from the University of New Orleans (“UNO”), Southern University of New Orleans (“SUNO”), Loyola, and local churches. As mentioned previously, a total of 20 neighborhoods were surveyed on December 4 - 8, 13, and 14, 2014.
2. Community Survey Demographics
The Monitoring Team surveyed more than 500 citizens in December 2014. The sample was randomly chosen to mirror the demographic make-up of the City as a whole. As graphically shown below, the sample was nearly evenly split between male and female respondents. Half of the respondents identified themselves as black, while 38% identified themselves as white. A majority of the sample is between 24 and 44 years old. About one-quarter indicated their highest level of education was high school. Nearly half (47.5%) however, has had some college or received a college degree, and 12.8% have a graduate/professional degree. Over 40% of the sample (40.4%) reported being single, 33.5% married, and 11.7% divorced. The sample was

6

Ten census blocks randomly were pulled from each tract for a cluster size of six housing units per block.

Since neighborhoods, census tracts, and census blocks vary in size and number of households, the

Monitoring Team weighted selection probabilities in proportion to households using a probability

proportional to size (PPS) sampling methodology. This methodology ensured households have an equal

probability of being selected into the sample across neighborhoods, tracts, and blocks.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 43 of 119 Page 43 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
composed of a close to even split between individuals who own their home (47.4%) and those that rent (44.3%). A majority of survey respondents indicated they were born in New Orleans (62.8%).
Complete aggregated details regarding respondent demographics can be found at Table 14 of Appendix 2. For convenience, some of those data are graphically summarized here:

Gender

Men Women

Age

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Race/Ethnicity
Black White Asian Hispanic Other
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 44 of 119 Page 44 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Education
Grade School Grade 9-11 High School Some College College Degree
As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 14 of Appendix 2.
3. Community Survey Findings
a. Citizens’ Satisfaction With NOPD Officers During Most Recent Interaction
Several survey questions asked respondents about their satisfaction with their most recent interaction with an NOPD officer, if they had one. This series of questions began by asking the respondent “when was the last time you interacted with a New Orleans Police Officer?” Over half of respondents (58.7%) indicated having had contact with an NOPD officer at some point in the past and 41.3% indicated no contact. Overall, the findings indicate most residents who have had an experience with an NOPD officer have a favorable view of the NOPD officer with whom they dealt. For most questions in this series, over 60% of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” (where agreement indicates a more satisfied or favorable view of officers). Of course, this also indicates about 30% of residents were not satisfied with or felt they were treated poorly during the interaction.
The detailed results of this series of questions are set out at Table 15 of Appendix 2.
b. Citizen Satisfaction With The NOPD
The next series of questions in the Community Survey focused on citizen perception of the NOPD generally, whether or not they ever had had an interaction with an NOPD officer. In other words, the previous section related the opinions of citizens who have had recent interactions with NOPD officers, while this section incorporates all responses, whether or not the citizen had an interaction with an NOPD officer. This series of questions were asked to all
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 45 of 119
Page 45 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

respondents. While the detailed aggregated data is compiled at Table 16 of Appendix 2, a few notable findings are summarized here:7
• Slightly more than half (53.9%) of the sample agreed NOPD officers follow the law during their police duties. However, 42.4% of respondents disagreed officers follow the law.
• A majority of respondents disagreed that corruption is low in the NOPD (62.2%).
• Most citizens indicated they do not fear interacting with NOPD officers (66.5%). However, over 30% of respondents fear such interaction.
• A majority of citizens believe scandals reflect current NOPD practices (48.3%) (43.9% agree scandals do not reflect current practices).
• Most respondents disagreed the NOPD is a better department since Katrina (51.9%).
• More than half (57.2%) of citizens are not satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job (38.7% are satisfied). Likewise, 68.1% of respondents disagree that officers respond in a timely manner.
• About 48% of citizens disagreed that they have more confidence in the NOPD compared to 3 years ago (44.3% agree that they have more confidence).
• A majority of respondents believe most crimes are not solved by the NOPD (53.2%) and the NOPD has little impact on crime (54.2%).
Finally, one of the most notable findings is that 82.5% of all respondents believe NOPD is in great need of more professionalization.8
c. Citizen Perception of NOPD Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness
The next series of questions focused on citizen perception of NOPD procedural fairness and trustworthiness issues. Several broad themes emerged from this analysis. First, sizeable

7

The description of the survey results incorporates a double negative as the questions were asked in a

negative way. Survey research normally incorporates questions asked in the positive and negative direction

to assure subjects pay attention to the meaning of the questions. We apologize for any confusion or

inconvenience.

8

Future analyzes will examine the survey findings in greater detail and evaluate the results by respondent

demographic (i.e., parse the results by race, gender, etc.).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 46 of 119
Page 46 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
portions of the sample disagree that NOPD officers are honest, fair in their decision making, professional, and have integrity. In fact, nearly half (and sometimes more than half) of the sample has this perception. Of course, this also implies about half of the sample agrees that NOPD officers are honest, fair in their decision making, and professional. What is more, most respondents (70.1%) agree that NOPD officers know they have to win the confidence of the public to be effective.
Thus, although some respondents may have negative evaluations of NOPD officers, this may suggest they acknowledge NOPD is trying to better itself. Further, despite fairly negative evaluations of NOPD officers, most citizens indicated they respect the NOPD (66.3%). This may suggest that citizens differentiate between the NOPD as an organization and individual NOPD officers (i.e., the negative evaluations may be constrained to specific officers the citizens are thinking about when answering the survey questions rather than generalizing to the entire organization). At the same time, it is important to realize 30.9% of respondents do not respect the NOPD.
Two questions were asked on the survey pertaining specifically to “stop and frisk.” A majority of the sample disagreed NOPD officers stop and frisk people for legitimate reasons (50.3%). Likewise, the final question in Table 17 of Appendix 2 (coded in opposite direction as other items; higher scores indicate disagreement) indicates 52.1% of the sample believes stop and frisk is used to harass people.
Additional details regarding this series of questions is set forth at Table 17, Appendix 2.
d. Citizen Willingness to Cooperate With The NOPD
The next series of questions focused on citizen willingness to cooperate with the NOPD. Interestingly, a majority of respondents indicated they would report dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD (72.6%). More than one-fifth (22.8%) of citizens, however, would not report such behavior. Similarly, and troublingly, only 57% of respondents indicated they would help the NOPD find a subject if asked, which means 43% would not.
More than one-quarter (27.7%) of respondents would not call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime. A follow-up question asked these individuals why they would not call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime. Of the 196 respondents, 24.4% indicated they would not call the NOPD because “I do not trust the NOPD,” 13.8% because “I do not want to be seen cooperating with the NOPD,” 8.2% because “I would fear negative consequences from the NOPD,” 17.3% because “I simply wouldn’t want to get involved,” and 38.3% because “I would cooperate anonymously, for example, through Crime Stoppers.”
The aggregated raw response frequencies can be found at Table 18, Appendix 2.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 47 of 119
Page 47 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
e. How NOPD Should Behave
This series of questions evaluated how citizens think NOPD should behave, and whether NOPD met those expectations. As expected, a vast majority of citizens believe NOPD officers should be accountable for their actions (93.8%), keep the public informed (92.1%), be open and honest when dealing with the public (94%), treat people with respect (95.3%), and be interested in the well-being of ordinary citizens (92.3%). A majority of those respondents, however, felt the working conditions for NOPD officers are not good (58.1%).
This series of questions also probed citizen perception of NOPD language resources. Almost 40% believe NOPD officers have access to language interpretation services. Similarly, 52.1% of respondents disagreed that NOPD has enough Spanish speaking officers.
The detailed results of this series of questions is set out at Table 19, Appendix 2.
f. Citizen Perception of How NOPD Officers Treat Minorities and Other Groups
The final series of Community Survey questions focused on how NOPD officers treat minority and other disadvantaged citizens. Most respondents (63.4%) disagreed NOPD officers treat African Americans fairly. Nearly half (49.2%) of respondents disagreed that NOPD officers treat Latinos fairly. More than one-third (36.6%) of respondents disagreed that NOPD officers treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly. Finally, over 46% of citizens indicated NOPD officers do not treat members of the LGBT community fairly.
Other notable findings follow. It is important to keep in mind, however, the Monitoring Team has not yet broken down the survey responses by race, gender, etc. Consequently, we readily recognize the following findings do not tell the whole story. For example, a finding that 58.3% of respondents do not believe victims in the Latino community fear reporting crime due to fear of deportation (as noted below), is not highly instructive until we dig into those data to see how the members of the Latino community themselves feel. Those analyses will be published in a forthcoming report.
• Most respondents (58.3%) do not believe victims in the Latino community fear reporting crime due to fear of deportation.
• Nearly 30% of citizens disagree that NOPD officers often engage in racial profiling. This suggests that most (60.5%) believe racial profiling is a common practice by NOPD officers.
• Over two-thirds of the sample (67.6%) believes the African-American community expects to be harassed by NOPD and 71.3% agree the African-American community does not believe the NOPD is credible. Similarly, 63.6% of citizens
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 48 of 119
Page 48 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
agree there is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD toward the African-American community.
• About 46% of respondents believe the LGBT community does not have confidence in the NOPD.
• Finally, a majority of citizens (56.8%) agree that the homeless are often treated poorly by the NOPD.
In summary, a large portion of surveyed citizens believe NOPD does not treat racial and ethnic minority residents fairly. Most notably, a majority of citizens believe members of the African-American community are not treated fairly and are routinely harassed by the NOPD. Relatedly, most respondents believed racial profiling is a common NOPD practice. Unfair and poor treatment of members of the LGBT community also was commonly perceived by citizens.
B. Detainee Survey
1. Detainee Survey Introduction
Surveying detainees helps the Monitoring Team learn about how those most recently in contact with the New Orleans police view NOPD’s behavior. While this is a “biased” study in that it uses information from those who have been arrested, it nonetheless provides useful information regarding how those individuals perceive they were treated by the NOPD. This is important information for the citizens of New Orleans. While many national studies have focused on jail inmates (for example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, has focused on characteristics of detainees), few have focused on detainees’ attitudes toward those who arrested them. The resulting survey data will help not only the Monitoring Team, but also the NOPD as it can use these data to better train its officers to deal with detainees.
The New Orleans detainee survey was designed to obtain personal information and opinions from individuals arrested by officers of the New Orleans Police Department and booked into the local jail. Monitor Team members trained community members who had worked on the community survey to conduct interviews of the detainees. A member of the Monitoring Team was present for most interview sessions.
There were 67 detainees available to us and 55 completed the interviews (82% response). As soon as the detainees were transferred from police custody to the jail and had provided preliminary information to the jail staff, they were asked to sit in chairs in front of the room where they would be interviewed. We identified ourselves as representatives of the Federal Monitoring Team for the New Orleans Police Department and asked each detainee if he/she would talk to us about his/her experiences with NOPD. The detainees who agreed were asked a series of questions by one interviewer and another interviewer recorded the responses. This was
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 49 of 119
Page 49 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

done in case a detainee could not read or did not understand the question. If the detainee needed clarification about the question, the interviewer provided the information.
2. Detainee Survey Demographics
The Monitoring Team interviewed 57 detainees at the Orleans Parish Prison over the course of four days and nights. A majority of the cohort (79.3%) was male; 19% was female.9 The ages of those interviewed ranged from 18-67, with an average age of 35. Most detainees were black (69%), 12.1% were white, 3.4% were Latino, 1.7% were Vietnamese, and 12.1% reported the “other” race/ethnicity category.
Detainee Respondents
Black White Latino Vietnamese Other

As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 21 of Appendix 3.
With respect to residence, nearly 80% of respondents indicated they live in New Orleans whereas 19% of detainees do not live in the city.
3. Detainee Survey Findings
a. Detainees’ Attitudes Toward NOPD Officers (Specifically) And Police Officers (Generally)
This series of questions probed detainees’ attitudes toward NOPD officers specifically, and police officers more generally. Detainees, on average, have negative perceptions of NOPD officers and the police in general. About 46% of detainees disagree NOPD officers do the right thing. About one-quarter of interviewed detainees agree they do the right thing. (27.6% neither disagree or agree with the statement).

9

We call this a “cohort” rather than a “sample” because it reflects whatever responsive population was

available during a snapshot in time, rather than the sort of effort undertaken with Community Survey to

ensure a demographically representative sample of the population as a whole.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 50 of 119 Page 50 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD Officers Do The Right Thing
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree or Agree Agree Strongly Agree
As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 22 of Appendix 3.
In comparison, equal proportions of respondents (38%, respectively) disagreed or agreed that police officers in general do the right thing (24.1% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
More than half (53.4%) of detainees were not satisfied with the way NOPD officers conduct themselves. About one-quarter of respondents were satisfied with NOPD conduct (22.4% neither disagree or agree with the statement). More than one-third (36.5%) of respondents believed they were not treated with respect by NOPD officers, whereas 31% felt they were treated with respect (22.4% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
Nearly half (48.3%) of detainees believed NOPD officers are not polite when dealing with them. About one-third believe they are treated politely (34.5) (15.5% neither disagree or agree with the statement). Slightly more than one-quarter (27.6%) of respondents felt NOPD officers are not polite when dealing with the public, whereas 31% agreed that officer are polite to the public (39.7% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
Additional notable findings are set forth below: • More than half (55.1%) of the respondents disagreed NOPD officers listen to them. About one-quarter agree NOPD officers listen to them (17.2% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 51 of 119
Page 51 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• A majority of detainees were not satisfied with how they were treated by NOPD (55.1%). Only 20.6% of respondents were satisfied with NOPD’s treatment (22.4% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
• Similarly, 62% of detainees were not satisfied with the outcome of their experience with NOPD, whereas only 15.5% of respondents were satisfied (20.7% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
• About two-thirds (65.5%) of detainees indicated they do not trust the police, generally. Only 10.3% of respondents trust the police (22.4% neither disagree or agree with the statement). However, 56.9% of detainees disagreed and 22.4% agreed that they have confidence in the police (19.0% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
• Most respondents were not satisfied with the way police do their job, generally (46.6%). About 22% of detainees, however, were satisfied with police performance (29.3% neither disagree or agree with the statement).
• Finally, 44.8% of detainees felt the NOPD is not highly competent.
In summary, a significant portion of detainees have negative views of the NOPD. Most detainees are not satisfied with the NOPD and do not believe they are polite, listen, or are competent. Negative attitudes also were common regarding the police, in general. However, these attitudes were less negative in comparison to detainees’ views of the NOPD, specifically. More details regarding these survey responses can be found in Appendix 3.
b. Detainees’ Perceptions Of NOPD Professionalism, Community Relations, And Respectful Treatment
This series of questions revealed 86.2% of detainees believe the NOPD is unprofessional. Only 12% of respondents indicated the agency is professional. Compared to three years ago, about one-quarter (25.9%) of respondents believe the NOPD’s professionalism has improved.10 A majority of detainees believe professionalism in the agency is about the same as three years ago and 22.4% believe NOPD is less professional.
More than one-third (34.4%) of detainees believe community relations with the NOPD are positive. However, 37.9% believe community relations with the NOPD are negative (nearly one-quarter believe they are “very negative”). (22.5% neither disagree or agree with the statement.)

10

The Monitoring Team specifically asked respondents to compare NOPD professionalism now to 3 years

ago. This finding is not a comparison to prior survey results.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 52 of 119 Page 52 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD/Community Relations
Very Negative
Somewhat Negative
Neither Positive Nor Negative Somewhat Positive
Very Positive
As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 23 of Appendix 3.
Compared to 3 years ago, most respondents believe community relations are about the same (44.8%). About one-fifth (20.7%) of detainees indicated community relations with the NOPD have improved over the past 3 years, whereas only 12.1% of respondents believe relations are worse.
Finally, about one-third of respondents indicated most or almost all NOPD officers treat them (the detainees) and their friends and family with respect (34.4%). About an equal amount (31%), however, feel about the same number of NOPD officers treat them with disrespect as treat them with respect. Furthermore, 31% of detainees believe most or almost all officers treat them with disrespect. Compared to 3 years ago, however, most respondents feel they are treated the same now by NOPD officers (44.8%). One-fifth (20.6%) of detainees believe they (and their friends and family) are treated more respectfully now than 3 years ago. About 14% of respondents feel NOPD treats them (and their friends and family) with less respect than they did 3 years ago.
c. Detainees’ Perceptions Of NOPD Treatment Of People From Different Races And Genders
As we did with the Community Survey, we questioned the detainees about their view of how NOPD treats people of different races and genders. Almost 20% (18.9%) of detainees believe the NOPD treats people from different races and genders the same most of or almost all of the time. About 29% of respondents believe the NOPD treats people from different races the same some of the time, and 31% believe this almost never happens.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 53 of 119 Page 53 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Does NOPD Treat Different Races The Same?
Almost Never Some of the Time Most of the Time Almost All of the Time
As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 24 of Appendix 3.
About 29% of respondents believe people from different genders are almost never treated the same (19% believe equal treatment between races occurs some of the time).
Compared to three years ago, 22.4% of respondents believe NOPD officers treat people from different races worse now. One-third of detainees believe NOPD treats people from different races about the same as 3 years ago. About 17% of respondents believe people from different races are treated better by the NOPD than 3 years ago.
d. Detainees’ Perceptions Of NOPD Performance We asked detainees to offer their views on how NOPD officers are doing their job. A majority of detainees believe the NOPD is doing a bad or terrible job today (43.1%). Over twothirds of respondents believe they are doing neither a good nor a bad job. Only about 19% of detainees believe the NOPD is doing a good or excellent job.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 54 of 119 Page 54 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
How Is NOPD Doing Its Job?
Terrible Bad Neither Good Nor Bad Good Excellent
As noted, further details regarding the surveyed population can be found at Table 25 of Appendix 3.
Compared to three years ago, 27.6% of respondents believe the quality of the job done by the NOPD has improved. About 22% of detainees believe the quality of work is about the same as three years ago. About 19% believe the NOPD’s quality of work has gone down.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 55 of 119
Page 55 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. RECRUITMENT (CD 234-244)
Section XI of the Consent Decree requires NOPD and the City, working with the Civil Service, “to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers.” In the context of such comprehensive program, the Consent Decree required NOPD to “develop a written, strategic recruitment plan that includes clear goals, objectives, and action steps for attracting high-quality applicants.” The plan, which was due on February 9, 2014, was required to include “specific strategies for attracting applicants with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish and Vietnamese . . . , and the ability to collaborate with a diverse crosssection of the community.” (CD 234)
The Monitoring Team has been evaluating NOPD’s recruitment and hiring efforts this past quarter and has identified some progress in this area. Among other things, the City has:
• Brought its applications online,
• Removed a residency requirement from its recruit process that was reducing the candidate pool,
• Increased major media and targeted online advertising,
• Streamlined the length of the pre-employment process, and
• Outsourced background investigations to a professional firm.
These improvements, most of which fall into the category of promoting awareness of the NOPD’s hiring needs, should be applauded. However, we have seen less progress in the area of developing a selection process that is smartly tailored to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. In fact, the Monitoring Team has identified several shortcomings in the NOPD’s selection process, the consequences of which, unfortunately, may take years to manifest themselves.
NOPD always has required its officer candidates to meet certain criteria. Among other things, potential officers have to pass background and criminal history checks and have at least some college credits (or have served in the military). On January 6, 2015, however, the Monitoring Team discovered (not from NOPD) that the Department planned to eliminate the college credit requirement in an effort to increase the number of applicants. While the Consent Decree does not mandate any minimum college credit hours for officer candidates, the Monitoring Team expressed concern over this change and requested detailed information from NOPD as to how it planned to secure officers “with strategic thinking and problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, capacity to use technology, fluency in Spanish
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 56 of 119
Page 56 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
and Vietnamese . . . , and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community.”
To be clear, it is not the view of the Monitoring Team that college credits necessarily make someone a great police officer. Nor is it our view that everyone without college credit will be a poor police officer. It is our view, however, that some college course work gives officers, especially new officers, a better perspective in the increasingly complicated world of policing; and that removal of the 60 college credit hours requirement for a police recruit is contrary to current thinking in modern police departments.11 While removing the college credit requirement may attract more applicants, are they the ones who will be successful officers in NOPD? Unless the removal of the college credit requirement is tied to a robust and holistic recruiting and hiring strategy, we are not convinced they will be. As is obvious from its actions and its statements, NOPD management disagrees with the Monitoring Team in this regard.
Rather than reducing qualifications to gain a larger pool of candidates, police agencies country-wide are focusing on expanding their recruitment efforts, focusing on colleges and universities for applicants, identifying candidates with good and successful work habits, and raising pay to attract candidates they think will succeed.12
While the Monitoring Team remains of the view some college credit is a best practice, since it is not a requirement of the Consent Decree, we focused our attention this quarter on how NOPD’s selection process as a whole is structured to ensure the selection of qualified officers – an obligations that clearly is in the Consent Decree.
According to NOPD, the heart of its selection process is (i) an applicant test administered by the Civil Service Commission, (ii) a face-to-face interview process, (iii) psychological testing, and (iv) testing covering physical and mental components. While the Monitoring Team continues to review each of these components, our preliminary findings are not favorable. To understand our concerns, it will be helpful to understand the full scope of NOPD’s hiring process:

11

See Louis Mayo, College Education and Policing, 113th Annual IACP Conference, available at

http://www.police-association.org/library/articles/iacp_aug06_college-ed-policing2.pdf.

12

Rostker, Bernard D.; Hix, William M.; Wilson, Jeremy M.; See e.g., RAND Gulf States Policy Institute,

Recruitment and Retention: Lessons for the New Orleans Police Department. Law Enforcement

Recruitment Toolkit, COPS/IACP Leadership Project, June 2009.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 57 of 119
Page 57 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

NOPD Application

Multilple Choice (Civil Service) Exam

Written Test

Physical Agility Test

Medical Exam

Conditional Job Offer

Background Investigation

Structured Oral Interview

Psychological Exam

Lie Detector Test

HIRED AS RECRUIT

Academy

FTO Program

SWORN IN AS NOPD OFFICER

While these steps are typical to police officer vetting and hiring in most large cities, the Monitoring Team’s concerns go to the robustness of certain of these steps.
First, until recently, the Monitoring Team had not been given a copy of the Civil Service exam. More notably, it appears many within NOPD management do not have access to the exam themselves. Without Department involvement in the testing process, we find it difficult to understand how the test truly can be viewed as a core component of NOPD’s strategic recruitment plan. Moreover, there is a long and well-developed literature on recruiting and hiring police applicants that shows tests are better at ruling candidates out rather than identifying characteristics and applicants likely to succeed.13
Second, the Monitoring Team has studied the purportedly “enhanced” “structured interview” process, which was put into effect this month. NOPD made positive, strategic moves by inviting private sector Human Resources directors and knowledgeable individuals to participate in the interview process. While the Team was impressed with the Human Resources experts the City had engaged to help implement the new process, we remain troubled by certain aspects of NOPD’s hiring practices.
NOPD should use industry standards and “best practices” to hire the best candidates. Unfortunately, the current process is designed to remove the subjective nature of the interview process and take away the interviewer’s ability to ask questions, follow-up on partial answers, and probe the candidate for more information. This process, because it stresses rigidity and removes subjective decision making, is defendable in a legal challenge (by an unsuccessful candidate), but it is not designed to determine the best candidates: it is more likely to identify “the lowest common denominator” candidate.

13

Rostker, Bernard D.; Hix, William M.; Wilson, Jeremy M.; See e.g., RAND Gulf States Policy Institute,

Recruitment and Retention: Lessons for the New Orleans Police Department.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 58 of 119
Page 58 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The interview procedures currently used by NOPD are “standardized” to the point that there is little need for human interaction. The questions can be asked of a candidate and the responses videotaped for mass evaluation. In fact, that is the way the interviewer training was conducted. There is no interactive process and no role for the interviewers to ask questions, clarify responses, or humanize the candidate. While this process may be appropriate to hire a person to conduct a factory job that does not change or require human interaction, it does not allow the interviewer to assess the candidate beyond an initial response to the “scripts.” In fact, the process prohibits discussion of the candidate’s ability to show how she or he might “negotiate” a situation, to talk a person through a tough time, or other real-world interactions. Candidates may be saying what they think the interviewers want to hear and, without follow-up questions, or examples, there is no way to determine whether the candidate truly understands a situation or script. Different candidates may interpret a script or question differently, but there is no method to determine what the person is thinking or exactly what she is answering. Answers remain a superficial response to the scripts.
Research shows for a police interview to be effective, the interviewer must be able to explain questions, respond to questions from the applicant, and, most important, probe into areas raised during the questioning.14 Unfortunately, NOPD has instructions they may not deviate at all from the interview script. They may not answer questions, may not explain questions a candidate finds confusing, and may not probe into areas of concern. While we understand the desire to adhere to a script from a litigation-reduction perspective (and from an efficiency perspective), such blind adherence reduces the effectiveness of the interview substantially. The Monitoring Team believes the City’s process will not achieve the intended result precisely because the interview is designed more to reduce the City’s liability to an unsuccessful candidate than to identify officers most likely to succeed.
The City stands by its interview process, and has offered statements from the process developers regarding its integrity and effectiveness. Unfortunately, only time will tell whether the Monitoring Team’s fears will be realized.
Beyond the interview process, the Monitoring Team has not seen adequate credible evidence demonstrating NOPD has established a strategic plan that will secure for it quality candidates. While our review is ongoing, at this point, we have expressed concerns to NOPD regarding:
• The benchmarks used to establish the exercises and pass/fail criteria on the physical agility test at the Academy,
• The validity of the multiple choice and writing exercise exams,

14

“Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide,” US Office of Personnel Management, September 2008; see

also, “Interview Techniques for Effective Hiring” By Lauren Simonds, Time Magazine, October 9, 2013.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 59 of 119 Page 59 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• The criteria applied to determine which applications are the “best,” • The validity and applicability of the oral interview as discussed above, and • The structure, rigor, and delivery of the psychological exam. And, of course, as noted above, we continue to have concerns about the potential long-term impact of the elimination of the college-credit requirement without a robust, holistic strategic plan put in its place. The Monitoring Team has met with Superintendent Harrison and his leadership team regarding these issues, and believes NOPD is committed to expanding its ranks and improving the quality of all officers – recruits and veterans. As noted above, however, good faith disagreements exist over the best way to turn that commitment into reality. We will continue to work closely with the Department to ensure its means are likely to achieve the intended ends, which are expressly required by the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 60 of 119
Page 60 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING (CD 245-288)
Over the past several months, the Monitoring Team has identified a number of significant shortcomings in NOPD’s training program. Among other things, we expressed concern over the mixed quality of Academy instructors, the absence of lesson plans, the lack of a holistic strategic “get-well” plan, insufficient resources, inadequate facilities, and more. At the same time, we expressed “cautious optimism” with respect to several initiatives recently undertaken, including the promotion of a new Academy director (Commander Richard Williams), the engagement of a dedicated Curriculum Director, and the creation of multiple new courses taught by a variety of in-house and outside experts.
Notwithstanding these positive developments, we continue to have significant concerns regarding the pace of change at the Academy. As of the publication of this report, the Academy still is operating without approved lesson plans, still does not have a holistic training plan, and still has not completed a meaningful evaluation of courses and instructors. Efforts are in process to cure these deficiencies, but they have not been cured yet.
We also continue to have concerns regarding the Academy’s prioritization of the many tasks the lie before it. For example, the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice recently learned the Academy was planning to delay in-service training (i.e., the annual training for current NOPD officers) until its revised lesson plans were prepared and approved. While compliant lesson plans obviously are critical to a meaningful training program (and to Consent Decree compliance), delaying necessary in-service training is not an acceptable solution to the problem of ongoing delays in completing such plans. Upon learning of the Academy’s plan, the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice encouraged the Academy to re-start in-service training (which it did), and provided the Academy with an initial critique of the in-service training materials, subject to a later complete review.
Due to the importance of training to the future of the NOPD, the United States District Court held a public hearing in open court on February 24, 2015. The purpose of the hearing was to hear from the Department of Justice, the Monitoring Team, and the NOPD regarding the problems facing the Academy and the Academy’s plans to fix them. Among other speakers, the Court heard from Superintendent Michael Harrison, Academy Commander Richard Williams, and NOPD Compliance Bureau implementation manager Alexandra Skaggs.
At the hearing, NOPD described a lengthy list of improvements planned for the Academy, as well as a list of improvements already implemented. These improvements, which have been confirmed by the Monitoring Team, include the following:
• The Academy has undertaken efforts to procure a new computer system to track and maintain all NOPD policies and the training relating thereto. This system, called PowerDMS, is intended to cover all Academy courses and all teaching materials. The system also is expected to be capable of sending notices to NOPD
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 61 of 119
Page 61 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
personnel reminding them of their training obligations, forthcoming courses, and certification requirements.
• Oregon’s Sexual Assault Task Force provided training to NOPD officers and supervisors in November 2014, provided the Academy a $1000 technology grant, and made available a host of best practice teaching materials. The Academy used the grant to purchase a video system, which will enable the Academy to record and retain its training programs. It also will facilitate supervisor evaluation and critique.
• In conjunction with the City, the Academy implemented a Domestic Violence webinar for all Command-level officers. The Academy also secured a grant to provide training for Supervisors on Domestic Violence and provide a Domestic Violence Train-the-Trainer course.
• At no cost to the City, the Academy engaged an outside expert to provide Supervision and Leadership Level II Training.
• NOPD partnered with the FBI to send Academy staff and adjunct instructors to specialized training put on by the FBI. This training included 40 hours of Law Enforcement Instructor School for all NOPD adjunct instructors. To date, 37 instructors have been trained. The Monitoring Team attended the FBI training, and was impressed with the quality and breadth of the program.
• NOPD reached out to obtain expert assistance offered by the DOJ COPS program. As a result of this effort, the COPS program has engaged the Virginia Center for Policing Innovation to provide expert technical assistance to NOPD. The COPS program is well respected in its ability to provide assistance to local police departments, and the Monitoring Team believes this will be a very positive relationship for NOPD.
• More recently, the Department secured the services of Dr. Lorie Fridell to provide Fair and Impartial Policing, addressing bias-free policing, community policing and use of force. The Monitoring Team is familiar with Dr. Fridell’s course, and believes this to be a very positive development.
In addition to these tangible improvements, Commander Williams provided the Court with a long list of other initiatives he and the Compliance Bureau are undertaking to improve all aspects of the Department’s training program, including recruit training, in-service training, and Field Officer Training. While the Monitoring Team is impressed with the scope and breadth of the list – and, so far, has been pleased with the commitment, energy, and dedication of Commander Williams and the Compliance Bureau – as we made clear during the Court hearing, we have no choice but to remain unconvinced until we see the results of the efforts. As they say
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 62 of 119 Page 62 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com in Missouri, “eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me; you have got to show me.” We very much look forward to being shown.
The Monitoring Team views NOPD’s training program as one of our primary monitoring tasks. We will continue to monitor this issue very closely.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 63 of 119
Page 63 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT (CD 289-294)
While most people think of the NOPD Consent Decree as focusing on the relationship between officers and citizens, an important component of the Consent Decree is its focus on the relationship between the Department and its officers. As the Department of Justice recognized in its Findings Letter, “policing is undeniably difficult,” and “police executives owe a duty to their community and officers to provide the services necessary to ensure the mental and physical wellness of their officers.” The Department of Justice concluded that NOPD was “failing to provide such critical officer assistance and support services.” To remedy this deficiency, the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.” (CD XIII)
While the Monitoring Team has not yet conducted a full evaluation of NOPD’s Officer Assistance & Support (“OA&S”) efforts, we have begun looking into this area and, preliminarily at least, have not been impressed. The Consent Decree required NOPD to develop “a department-wide mental and physical health and wellness program” by February 5, 2014. (CD 290) To date, the Department has no such program in place. Indeed, as far as we can tell, NOPD is not yet in compliance with any element of the OA&S requirements.
Due to the lack of progress in this area – as we did when we saw no progress with respect to the Crisis Intervention Team (CD IV) – the Monitoring Team met with the Deputy Chief responsible for OA&S to discuss NOPD’s plans to move forward toward compliance. The Monitoring Team learned that NOPD has sought approval from the Civil Service Commission to hire an outside expert to lead the Department’s OA&S efforts. While this is a positive step, the approval, vetting, hiring, and getting-up-to-speed process will take some time. The Monitoring Team has made it clear to NOPD we do not believe officers should go without necessary services while the prospective new employees work their way through the hiring process. We have requested a specific plan be prepared by NOPD outlining the steps the Department will take in the near-term to meet its OA&S obligations while working toward its longer term plans.
Additionally, the Monitoring Team has begun supplementing its many one-on-one meetings with officers with small group meetings focused primarily on OA&S issues. Our first such group meeting was informative, and, frankly, emotional. We recommend, as NOPD moves forward with its OA&S compliance efforts, NOPD do the same thing; spend time listening to its officers, understanding their stresses and hardships, and incorporating their input into their OA&S plans.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 64 of 119
Page 64 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVI. SUPERVISION (CD 306-331)
As we have in the past three quarters, the Monitoring Team again spent significant time this quarter focusing on NOPD supervision and supervisors. And we continued to identify deficiencies in the level and effectiveness of supervision we see from NOPD’s sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and commanders. We saw these deficiencies in most districts as well as in specialized units; and we saw them in a multitude of contexts, including failing to review Use of Force Reports, failing to review video recordings, inadequate record keeping, non-existence of lesson plans, unreported non-functioning equipment, and more. These are ongoing problems that must be remedied.
Modern policing asks a lot of police supervisors, and especially a lot of sergeants. Among other things, sergeants are responsible for supervising officers, reviewing videos, reviewing and approving police reports and Daily Activity Report “trip sheets,” conducting disciplinary investigations, compiling and preparing crime statistics for NOPD management, responding to calls for service, and much more. On top of this all, sergeants (and lieutenants, commanders, etc.) are responsible for providing “close and effective” supervision to those who work under them, which, per the Consent Decree, requires them to respond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties.
As the Monitoring Team has reported in the past, NOPD continues to fall short of providing the sort of close and effective supervision contemplated by the Consent Decree. There could be several reasons for this. Some supervisors may lack the interest. Others may lack the skill. But many may just lack the time. Regardless of the reason, the fact is NOPD continues to have a ways to go to build up its supervisory capabilities to the level contemplated by the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team audited NOPD’s eight police districts, as well as the Special Operations Division, the Sex Crimes Division, and the Homicide Division, during the last three months of 2014, just as we have during each preceding quarter. Our review revealed some areas of improvement and some areas where compliance continues to lag. On the positive side, NOPD has developed and implemented new “trip sheets” and “supervisor logs,” which will help facilitate effective supervision. Additionally, some districts have developed new, more robust (and more auditable) procedures to facilitate effective supervision.
NOPD’s Fourth District provides a great example of Consent Decree progress. The District’s record keeping practices were greatly improved this past quarter as compared to prior
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 65 of 119
Page 65 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
quarters. Due, in part, to the personal attention of a conscientious lieutenant, the Fourth District made considerable progress toward full compliance. Similarly the Eighth District was able to attain compliance with several additional Consent Decree due to a focused effort by managers.
In contrast to these positive stories, the Monitoring Team continues to see little evidence of consistent progress across NOPD Districts with several other areas of the Consent Decree relating to supervision. For example, supervisors in many districts only sporadically review the functionality and use of in-car cameras, hand-held recording devices, custodial interrogation records/recordings, and photographic line-up record/recordings. Even simple elements of the Consent Decree are not broadly implemented. Paragraph 174, for example, requires NOPD to “keep a complete record of each [photographic lineup] display procedure and results.” The Consent Decree goes on to require such record to “include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up.” Although supervisors in all districts were advised the NOPD Homicide Division had developed an effective form to comply with paragraph 174, many districts still have not implemented it, or any other equivalent form.
The following examples illustrate the sort of potentially inadequate supervision we continue to see in many districts:
• A platoon sergeant noted in his log an officer was counseled for not notifying the sergeant of a use of force. The District, however, had no record of such counseling having been provided.
• A sergeant recorded in his log he had to advise officers to turn on their body worn cameras. No documentation, however, indicated the sergeant referred the matter to PIB notwithstanding the requirement of Consent Decree paragraph 330, which provides “Supervisors shall refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment.”
• A third example involved an officer purportedly conducting undercover surveillance in plain clothes and in an unmarked vehicle. A sergeant noted in his log the officer made a traffic stop for seat belt non-use. The log explained the officer was not wearing a body worn camera because he was working “undercover.” While undercover officers are exempt from NOPD’s BWC requirement, we question the undercover status of an officer conducting seat belt traffic stops. While there could be a plausible justification for this, the documentation did not provide one.
To be sure, some element of NOPD’s inability to demonstrate full compliance with certain Consent Decree paragraphs is due more to inadequate record keeping than it is to a failure of supervision. But, as we have said before, from the Monitoring Team’s perspective, if the NOPD
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 66 of 119
Page 66 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
cannot demonstrate compliance, we cannot find compliance. This is consistent with paragraph 486 of the Consent Decree, which provides “at all times, the City and NOPD shall bear the burden of demonstrating full and effective compliance with this Agreement.”
While the Monitoring Team has made all of its concerns known to the NOPD, some of the more pressing concerns are outlined below.
A. Duties of Supervisors (CD 306-313)
1. Paragraph 306 (Duties)
As noted above, the list of duties for which NOPD supervisors are responsible is quite long. Per Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree, supervisors must perform the following functions:
[R]espond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties.
The Monitoring Team’s audits during the last three months of 2014 revealed NOPD was not consistently performing these tasks – or, at least, was not able to offer documentation demonstrating these tasks consistently were being performed.
While NOPD was able to offer evidence supervisors often responded to the scene of arrests, reviewed arrest reports, and reviewed officer daily activity reports, the Department’s record keeping system precluded a full showing of compliance in these areas. As noted above, this may be more a problem with documentation than with performance. Nonetheless, without adequate documentation, the Monitoring Team cannot find the Department in compliance even in these areas where progress does seem to have been made. Lack of documentation not only prevents the Monitoring Team from evaluating compliance, but, more importantly, it prevents NOPD upper-level supervisors from determining whether District sergeants and/or lieutenants are doing their jobs.
In contrast to the evidence NOPD was able to show in the foregoing areas, the Department produced few documents evidencing counseling or redirection for officers and few documents reflecting disciplinary action to hold officers accountable. Few districts maintained a list of counseling memoranda or disciplinary actions initiated. Few districts had copies of DI1 or
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 67 of 119
Page 67 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
DI2 paperwork. While some supervisors referred the Monitoring Team to PIB to obtain such information, the existence of disciplinary materials at PIB does not excuse district supervisors from having to be aware of what is going on in their districts. District supervisors who are unaware of their subordinate’s discipline cannot be providing the “close and effective” supervision required of the Consent Decree.
The Monitoring Team did identify several individual platoon supervisors who maintained a file for each officer assigned to his/her platoon, in which he/she maintained letters of appreciation from the public, written counseling, awards, disciplinary reports, use of force reports, and job enhancement performance reports. These supervisors did maintain documentation of good and poor performance, and the actions they took as supervisors to address the performance of officers under their command. While these supervisors deserve praise for their understanding of and compliance with this element of the Consent Decree, the majority of shift supervisors we interviewed could not produce either any or any significant amount of documentation of subordinates’ performance.
Another area where the NOPD was unable to provide documentation demonstrating compliance was with respect to community engagement. Per the Consent Decree, supervisors must “ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety.” While the Monitoring Team certainly has observed many officers performing this function admirably, we have not seen evidence that sergeants and lieutenants consistently are supervising this area to ensure all officers are living up to this obligation. Similarly, NOPD was not able to offer documentation demonstrating that officers who did not take this obligation seriously ever were disciplined or even counseled. The absence of discussions focused on this topic from the many roll calls the Monitoring Team attended suggests this may be more than a record keeping problem.
With respect to uses of force, NOPD was unable to produce consistent records that supervisors “respond to the scene of uses of force” and “investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT).” In fact, nearly half of the Use of Force reports the Monitoring Team reviewed in the Districts did not document a supervisor (i) responded to the scene (although they are not required to respond to level one uses of force), (ii) initiated an investigation into the use of force, (iii) conducted interviews, (iv) utilized the recording device to record interviews, (v) canvass for witnesses, (vi) reviewed audio/video recordings, or (vii) made assessments regarding the justification or reasonableness of the use of force.
While NOPD should be commended for having improved its officer “trip sheets” to capture the data elements necessary to permit close and effective supervisions (and to facilitate compliance with several Consent Decree requirements), the Monitoring Team observed these improved trip sheets are not yet being completed fully and consistently.
Additionally, the “daily activity reports” completed by supervisors continue to ignore many aspects of “close and effective” supervision. Supervisors frequently are not documenting
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 68 of 119
Page 68 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
whether they responded to the scene of certain arrests, reviewed each arrest report, responded to the scene of uses of force, investigated each use of force, responded to each complaint of misconduct, ensured that officers were working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety, or provided counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed. An effective supervisors’ report should include monitoring of officers, guidance provided to officers, counseling, discipline initiated or administered, responding to and investigating citizen complaints, responding to and investigating use of force incidents, responding to certain arrests, approving arrest reports, approving activity reports (trip sheets), completing performance evaluations, and ensuring officers work actively to engage the public and increase public trust.
While many supervisors have provided credible, but anecdotal, information regarding some of their activities that could provide evidence of compliance with paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree, there is no systemic method to document or track compliance. The supervisor report does not track what supervisors’ responsibilities should be. It is geared primarily to address “comstat” needs. An appropriate supervisor’s report should be utilized to provide data as evidence of compliance with the Consent Decree as the current report provides data for the comstat meetings.
2. Paragraph 307 (Assignments)
Paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree requires that “all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor.” NOPD’s eight police districts are in full compliance with this requirement with respect to patrol officers, general assignment officers, and investigators.
3. Paragraph 308 (Task Force/Narcotics Supervisors)
Paragraph 308 of the Consent Decree requires that “task force and narcotics supervisors shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill. Investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap.” NOPD is not yet able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
First, detectives are assigned to work seven days per week, but supervisors work only five days per week. Similarly, Investigations supervisors are generally scheduled off from work two days per week, but the detectives they supervise are scheduled to work all seven days each week. While some of these gaps may fall within the “shift differences” exception to the Consent Decree requirement, the Monitoring Team is not yet convinced supervisor coverage has been implemented as required.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 69 of 119
Page 69 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
With respect to “General Assignments” (the successor group to NOPD’s proactive District-based Task Forces), there are times when General Assignment officers are working without a supervisor assigned. Some officers are not assigned to work the same dates as the supervisor. Investigators and their supervisor work staggered times. Detectives in General Assignments and Investigations do not work the same hours and days as the supervisors. Detectives are not assigned to work the same dates and hours as their supervisor. With the merger of task force and narcotics personnel into the General Assignments section of the district, the sole task force supervisor no longer works the same shift and days as the officers assigned to the supervisor.
4. Paragraph 309 (District Platoon Patrol Supervisors)
Consent Decree paragraph 309 requires that District Platoon Patrol supervisors “be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill.” NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement for each of its eight districts. The Monitoring Team still is assessing compliance with respect to NOPD’s Special Operations unit.
5. Paragraph 310 (Patrol Supervisor Ratio)
Paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree requires that first-line patrol supervisors “be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. On duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units.” While NOPD has made progress in this area, it is not yet able to demonstrate full compliance.
The records reviewed by the Monitoring Team confirmed that most officers were assigned to a single supervisor. Generally, this translated into at least three supervisors assigned to a platoon made up of 8 - 12 officers. Some districts, however, were unable to produce records of days off, which made it impossible to evaluate whether the expected ratios are implemented consistently in each district. The notable exceptions were NOPD’s Fourth and Sixth Districts, which were able to demonstrate full compliance with Paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree. Other Districts were unable to demonstrate compliance. For example:
• The First District was unable to provide a list of days off for multiple supervisors.
• The Second District was unable to produce supervisor work schedules. Moreover, the records produced by the Second District showed the District was not consistently in compliance with the ratio requirement, with several shifts having a ratio of 9:1 rather than 8:1. In addition, there was at least one week with no supervisor assigned to General Assignments. During that period, the officers assigned to General Assignments report to the platoon supervisors. While those
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 70 of 119
Page 70 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
officers at least had a responsible “stand in” supervisor, the arrangement violated the 8:1 Consent Decree ratio.
• The Third District was unable to provide a comprehensive list of supervisor work schedules.
• The Fifth District was unable to produce work schedules for General Assignments detectives. On dates their supervisor is not working, the detectives of that unit report to platoon supervisors. Without work schedules, it cannot be determined if a platoon supervisor is assigned more than eight officers.
• The Seventh District was unable to provide a comprehensive list of supervisors scheduled to work in the afternoon and evening shifts. In addition, on at least one day, 12 officers were scheduled to work without any supervisor listed on the schedule.
• The Eighth District could not consistently demonstrate compliance with paragraph 310 because, on some days, a supervisor was not listed on the work schedule. Additionally, platoon supervisors were scheduled to oversee officers not in their platoon, including the officers assigned to the “Day Watch” and the “Promenade.”
• The Special Operations unit was unable to produce documents demonstrating compliance. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team is unable to find the Special Operations Division in compliance with paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree.
As noted above, while some progress has been made, NOPD still cannot demonstrate compliance with paragraph 310.
6. Paragraph 311 (Acting Patrol Supervisor Training)
Paragraph 311 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop and implement a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable. NOPD shall ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent non-acting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks.” NOPD is not in compliance with this requirement. The Training Academy has not developed training or trained any personnel as acting patrol supervisors.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 71 of 119
Page 71 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
7. Paragraph 312 (Commanders and Lieutenants)
Consent Decree paragraph 312 provides that “District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command.” The paragraph goes on to provide that “All NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement.” Although the supervisors’ activity reports were revised recently, they are not being completed fully and consistently. As a result, the supervisors’ activity sheets are missing critical information such as the direction they provided at roll call, any orders conveyed to officers, their expectations while interacting with the public, counseling they provided, disciplinary actions initiated, complaints to which they responded, monitoring of officer activity on calls for service or traffic stops, or other actions taken by a supervisor to ensure compliance with paragraph 312 of the consent decree. The lack of adequate supervisor reports prevents documentation of actions taken by supervisors when they respond to the field to supervise including actions taken to address use of force incidents and citizens’ complaints.
While the Monitoring Team has observed progress in many districts and has observed commanders and lieutenants working to implement these requirements, most districts still are unable to document (and, thus, demonstrate) compliance with this requirement. Notably, the Fourth District has taken significant steps toward compliance, having assigned the project to a capable lieutenant.
8. Paragraph 313 (Holding Commanders Accountable)
Paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate.” As noted above, NOPD was able to produce few documents demonstrating compliance with this requirement. Few documents were produced to provide evidence of counseling or redirection, and only a few documents were produced to provide evidence of disciplinary action to hold officers accountable. Most commands did not have a list of counseling memos or disciplinary actions initiated. Most commands referred the Monitoring Team to PIB to obtain any evidence of supervisors identified and effectively responded to misconduct. We were provided no documents that provided evidence supervisors were held accountable for performing their duties.15

15

In early 2015, NOPD implemented a new “performance evaluation matrix” to facilitate the evaluation of

Department rank. The Monitoring Team will explore this improvement in a future period.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 72 of 119
Page 72 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Supervisor’s reports did not include information concerning orders relayed from higher authority, counseling provided to officers, direction to officers regarding engagement of the public, or discipline. Supervisor’s performance evaluations were generally not available, few counseling memos were available, and few disciplinary reports were available. The performance evaluations reviewed were not adequate to assess supervisors’ performance. The evaluations did not include a section to evaluate “whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations” as required by paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree.
B. Supervisor and Command-Level Training
1. Paragraph 314 (Supervisory Training)
Consent Decree paragraph 314 requires that NOPD “develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors.” Specifically, the Consent Decree requires that “[a]ll current supervisors shall receive 200 hours of mandatory supervisory training within two years of the Effective Date.” The Consent Decree goes on to lay out the details of such training as follows:
NOPD shall receive credit for professional police leadership training being provided in 2012 to current NOPD supervisors. All officers becoming supervisors within two years of the Effective Date shall receive 160 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. All officers becoming supervisors after two years of the Effective Date shall receive 80 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. In addition to this initial supervisory training, NOPD agrees to require each supervisor to complete at least 40 hours of supervisor-specific training annually thereafter. In-service training for supervisors, including commanders, shall provide necessary updates and refreshers, as well as training in new skills.
NOPD developed and implemented mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. The training follows an FBI-developed lesson plan. The Consent Decree requires that all supervisors promoted between 8/9/13 and 8/9/15 receive 160 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties. Sergeants promoted in April of 2014 received 160 hours of supervisory training, meeting this requirement of the Consent Decree. This represents a positive step forward by NOPD.
Other areas of this requirement, however, are harder to assess due to inadequate records. For example, NOPD was unable to produce records demonstrating every supervisor completed at least 40 hours of supervisor-specific annual training. Similarly, NOPD was unable to demonstrate lieutenants and commanders had taken required in-service supervisor training.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 73 of 119 Page 73 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In short, while NOPD has made progress, the Department cannot yet demonstrate full compliance with paragraph 314.
2. Paragraph 315 (Supervisory Training Program)
Paragraph 315 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop a supervisory training program that incorporates the following enumerated elements.
• Techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices
• De-escalating conflict, including through peer intervention.
• Evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-based description, and how to identify “pat,” “boilerplate,” or conclusory language that is not explained by specific facts.
• Investigating officer uses of force.
• Operation of supervisory tools such as the EWS, mobile recording equipment, and AVL.
• Burdens of proof, interview techniques, and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant, or witness credibility, to ensure that investigative findings, conclusions, and recommendations are unbiased, uniform and legally supported.
• Evaluating officer performance as part of NOPD’s annual performance evaluation system.
• Fostering positive career development and imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions and non-disciplinary corrective action.
• Building community partnerships and guiding officers.
• Incorporating integrity-related data into COMSTAT reporting.
NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with any of these Consent Decreemandated training requirements. One exception to this general conclusion related to NOPD’s teaching of techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices. NOPD’s current supervisory training does include a one and onehalf (1 ½) hour ethics training session provided by PIB personnel. The instruction was provided by PIB personnel.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 74 of 119 Page 74 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities 1. Paragraph 327 (Operational Equipment)
Paragraph 327 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to maintain and operate video cameras and AVL in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras or AVL units, as necessary for reliable functioning.” The Consent Decree goes on to require that “one-half of these vehicles will be equipped with video cameras and AVL” by August 2014. The Consent Decree further provides NOPD must “ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities.”
The Monitoring Team audits the functionality of in-car cameras on a monthly basis. Prior reports have identified significant shortcomings in the NOPD’s compliance with paragraph 327. Some of these shortcomings were the fault of officers, who failed to report non-functional cameras; others were the fault of supervisors, who failed to take action when reports were made. The primary driver of non-compliance now, however, seems to be technological. NOPD simply lacks the server capacity to ensure the functionality of all its in-car cameras. The Monitoring Team brought this matter to the attention of the Court, and the Court has been requiring frequent updates from the City regarding its efforts to expand its server capacity. As of the publication of this report, the City reports new servers have been ordered, but not yet installed.
With that as background, the Monitoring Team’s most recent audit findings regarding incar camera functionality are as follows:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 75 of 119
Page 75 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

In-Car Cameras
Camera Functionality

While this is a significant improvement as compared to past assessments – and does meet the Consent Decree’s interim 50% requirement – certain Districts still have a ways to go to achieve 100% camera functionality. The Monitoring Team believes the forthcoming implementation of the new camera servers will go a long way toward achieving that goal.
The Monitoring Team’s reviews of NOPD’s Automatic Vehicle Location System revealed NOPD is in full compliance with this requirement. Our audit of each of the Department’s eight police districts confirmed all audited cars were equipped with the necessary system and that it was functioning.
Finally, while progress has been made regarding the requirement that supervisors conduct reviews of in-car equipment, the Monitoring Team cannot yet find NOPD in full compliance with this requirement. Many Districts were able to demonstrate compliance, but some could offer only anecdotal evidence that such reviews were regularly conducted. In one District, notwithstanding the claims that reviews were conducted regularly, the supervisors failed to notice that only two of the in-car cameras had operable external microphones. This disconnect highlights why the Monitoring Team requires documentary rather than anecdotal evidence.
2. Paragraph 329 (Testing Schedule)
Consent Decree paragraph 329 provides that NOPD shall “develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order, [and that] officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 76 of 119
Page 76 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment.” NOPD is unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
While the NOPD Compliance Bureau previously performed a District by District audit of NOPD’s in-car cameras, we have not seen that audit implemented as a standard, consistent practice. The Monitoring Team has no seen Districts conduct such audits on a consistent basis.
While not routinely testing, it is worth mentioning that NOPD’s Fourth District does maintain a spreadsheet that tracks when officers report non-operating equipment, when the supervisors report the non-operating equipment to the appropriate personnel, and when the equipment is repaired. We commend the Fourth District for implementing this rather simple and effective practice, and hope other Districts undertake similar efforts to ensure equipment is functioning as it should.
3. Paragraph 330
Paragraph 330 of the Consent Decree provides that supervisors shall be responsible for “ensuring that officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, ECW cameras, and similar equipment, as required by policy. Supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed. Supervisors shall refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment.” NOPD is in partial compliance with this requirement.
Most supervisors in most districts were unable to provide documentation evidencing compliance with paragraph 330. Moreover, many supervisors in many districts admitted they did not know how to ensure the functionality and use of certain types of equipment. Several supervisors explained, for example, they do not know if a CEW (Taser) camera is working until they have been used and the academy personnel who monitor their use would advise them if the cameras worked.
With respect to the supervisors’ obligation to report problems with equipment, the Monitoring Team has noted an improvement over past months, but has not yet seen full compliance with the Consent Decree requirement. With respect to in-car microphones, for example, we have seen problems go unreported for significant periods of time. Supervisors from Districts 1, 2, 3, and 8, for example, were either unaware that most external microphones on mobile video recordings were not operable or they took no action upon learning they were inoperable. And none of those Districts maintained effective documentation to document and track the functionality of technology equipment. In contrast, the Fourth District maintains a simple spreadsheet that tracks when officers report non-operating equipment, when the supervisors report the non-operating equipment to the appropriate personnel and when the equipment is repaired.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 77 of 119 Page 77 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD recently implemented a new officer “trip sheet” and supervisor report form, which are designed to help officers and supervisors identify non-functioning equipment. While the new form only recently was rolled out, the Monitoring Team believes it will help NOPD meet its obligations under paragraph 330. In the meantime, our reviews reveal NOPD is not yet in full compliance.
D. Early Warning System (“EWS”) The Consent Decree requires the City and NOPD to develop, implement, and maintain an EWS to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible. The Consent Decree further requires that NOPD regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts. In the Monitoring Team’s prior Report, we recognized that, following an open national competition, the City had selected a vendor (Sierra-Cedar) to assist it in designing and implementing its EWS. The selected vendor has experience implementing Early Warning Systems in other jurisdictions under Consent Decrees, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Oakland Police Department. More recently, in February 2015, the City signed a contract with the contractor. Also in February, the City and its vendor initiated substantive implementation efforts. Among other things, the City hired an internal team to facilitate implementation – a critically important choice since one of the most common reasons large scale IT implementations fail is the absence of dedicated management. This implementation team includes an NOPD project manager and two business analysts. The team also includes a database administrator staffed within the City of New Orleans’ IT section. The Monitoring Team continues to watch closely the City’s progress toward meeting its EWS obligations.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 78 of 119 Page 78 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION (CD 375-426) The Monitoring Team continues to monitor NOPD’s complaint intake, investigation, and
adjudication process closely. We attend disciplinary hearings, meet with PIB and IPM to discuss our findings and their views, and request additional NOPD attention to matters where we believe an investigation was incomplete or inadequate. We also continue to review all serious Use of Force incidents.
In addition to our ongoing reviews, the Monitoring Team is in the process of several targeted reviews focused at certain key elements of the Consent Decree. These reviews include the following:
• A review of PIB’s coding of citizen complaints alleging racial profiling. The purpose of this review is to determine whether complaints alleging racial profiling actually are being coded by PIB as racial profiling complaints. The Monitoring Team is performing this review in conjunction with the IPM.
• A review of all PIB investigations involving Body Worn Camera non-use or misuse. This project involves a review of the PIB investigation file by a member of the Monitoring Team to evaluate the effectiveness of the PIB investigation and to assess the fairness, consistency, and meaningfulness of the resulting discipline.
• The Monitoring Team is working closely with the Department of Justice and the NOPD Compliance Bureau to review, revise, and finalize NOPD’s policies relating to misconduct investigations and adjudications.
Additionally, as noted above, the Monitoring Team continues to attend and compile data on disciplinary hearings, which ultimately will inform our analysis of the quality, consistency, and fairness of such hearings.
The results of these reviews will be published in forthcoming stand-alone reports.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 79 of 119
Page 79 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT (CD 444 – 492)
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team and IPM communicated frequently during this quarter and coordinated their efforts to the extent practicable. The Monitoring Team continues to be impressed by the passion, dedication, and impact of the IPM; and recognizes the respect the organization has within the New Orleans community. The Monitoring Team and the IPM continue to work together on a joint analysis of racial profiling complaints filed with PIB, and intends to initiate other joint activities. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it receives from the IPM.
B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.”
As noted in the Monitoring Team’s prior two quarterly reports, “a fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.” Previously, the Monitoring Team found NOPD not in compliance with this requirement, but in 2014, the NOPD fully staffed the Consent Decree Implementation Unit, which brought the Department into compliance. The Monitoring Team continues to be pleased by the Unit’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process; and recognizes the full cooperation it continues to receive from the Unit.
C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD generally did cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting quarter. The one area where we did not receive the full cooperation of the NOPD was in response to our request for information following the Department’s surprising elimination of the college credit requirement from its recruitment standards. The Monitoring Team requested details from the NOPD demonstrating it had a sensible and well-thought-out plan to ensure the change in standards would not impact any element of the Consent Decree. NOPD did not provide the information requested by the Monitoring Team. Subsequently, the issue was discussed with the Court and the Monitoring Team has received confirmation the requested information will be provided.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 80 of 119 Page 80 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team continues to receive the full cooperation of and continues to work closely with the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). While the OIG’s activities do not fall within our monitoring responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the OIG has kept us apprised of its audit plans and investigators as they relate to the NOPD. We continue to be impressed by the quality of the OIG personnel with whom we work and with the quality and thoroughness of the OIG’s work product. The Monitoring Team looks forward to an ongoing positive relationship with the OIG, and, in fact, is in the process of coordinating a joint project with the OIG, which will focus on NOPD’s use of “Signal 21” codes to classify calls for service as “miscellaneous.”
Finally, the Monitoring Team also has been impressed with the close working relationship between NOPD’s current domestic violence detectives and the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, and the level of cooperation we continue to receive from the DA’s office.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 81 of 119 Page 81 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. CONCLUSION The Monitoring Team’s activities during this reporting quarter, like the last, revealed
progress in some areas, but lagging compliance in others. Significant deficiencies remain, which must be remedied, including in the areas of training, supervision, record keeping, and Officer Assistance & Support. The progress NOPD has made in other areas, however, keeps us cautiously optimistic that NOPD is moving in the right direction. As we noted in our last report, our cautious optimism continues to be bolstered by the personal commitment to the spirit and letter of the Consent Decree we have seen from NOPD’s leadership, including Superintendent Harrison, Deputy Chief Westbrook (PIB), Deputy Chief Ginsberg (Compliance Bureau), and newly-promoted Commander Williams (Training), among others. Each manager has made clear his/her commitment to the Consent Decree, to working closely with the Monitoring Team, and to implementing meaningful and lasting change within the Department. That is not to say the Monitoring Team always agrees with the path NOPD travels to achieve compliance – the elimination of the college credit requirement without a robust, holistic recruitment/hiring plan in its place is such an example – but, lately, we have been given little reason to doubt their personal commitment to achieving compliance. Each manager (and many others) readily has acknowledged the seriousness of the problems that need fixing and has taken ownership of those problems. While their shared attitude does not mean NOPD is nearing the finish line, it does help ensure there is a finish line.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 82 of 119 Page 82 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com XX. APPENDICES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 83 of 119 Page 83 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 1 POLICE SURVEY RESPONSES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 84 of 119
Page 84 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7 - Distribution of Responses for Section 1: “Police Work and Your Working Environment”

Response categories:
Survey questions (Mean in parentheses): 1. Generally, civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M = 2.75)

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

33 (7.3)

89 (19.8)

Agree (3) N (%)
260 (57.9)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
46 (10.2)

2. Generally, in my District, my fellow officers treat me 6 (1.3) with respect. (M = 3.36)

13 (2.9)

231 (51.4)

179 (39.9)

3. Generally, in my District, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M = 3.24)

14 (3.1)

34 (7.6)

215 (47.9)

164 (36.5)

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M = 2.50)

63 (14.0)

134 (29.8)

194 (43.2)

43 (9.6)

5. I receive training from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 2.49)

52 (11.6)

148 (33.0)

205 (45.7)

31 (6.9)

6. I receive quality equipment from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 1.87)

162 (36.1) Very bad (1)

178 (39.6)

86 (19.2)

9 (2.0)

Somewhat bad (2) Somewhat good (3) Very good (4)

8. Overall, how would you rate the relationships among 31 (6.9) the racial and ethnic groups in NOPD? (M = 2.86)

82 (18.3)

242 (53.9)

78 (17.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M). Survey question #7 is not included in this table because it featured different response categories.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 85 of 119
Page 85 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8 - Distribution of Responses for Section 2: “Managers and Supervisors”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
9. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless 25 (5.6) of gender. (M = 2.79)

10. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of 42 (9.4) gender. (M = 2.62)

11. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.79)

24 (5.3)

12. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of 37 (8.2) their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.68)

13. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation. (M = 2.87)

21 (4.7)

14. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of 22 (4.9) their sexual orientation.(M = 2.85)

15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work.(M = 2.97)

33 (7.3)

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M = 3.24)

11 (2.4)

Disagree (2) N (%)
103 (22.9) 134 (29.8) 98 (21.8) 125 (27.8) 81 (18.0) 90 (20.0) 69 (15.4) 44 (9.8)

Agree (3) N (%)
244 (54.3) 203 (45.2) 258 (57.5) 211 (47.0) 266 (59.2) 253 (56.3) 210 (46.8) 206 (45.9)

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of working. (M = 2.87)

44 (9.8)

64 (14.3)

207 (46.1)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
63 (14.0) 54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 61 (13.6) 67 (14.9) 68 (15.1) 121 (26.9) 172 (38.3) 99 (22.0)

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 86 of 119
Page 86 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)

18. My district/division commander has improved relations with the community in which I work. (M = 2.91)

25 (5.6)

61 (13.6)

223 (49.7)

75 (16.7)

19. My district/division commander is a good leader. (M = 3.04)

33 (7.3)

43 (9.6)

211 (47.0)

124 (27.6)

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. (M = 1.73)

225 (50.1)

110 (24.5)

61 (13.6)

25 (5.6)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 87 of 119
Page 87 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9 - Distribution of Responses for Section 3: “Personnel and Management Systems”

Response categories:
Survey questions (Mean in parentheses): 21. The Department today hires qualified people. (M = 2.35)

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

75 (16.7)

140 (31.2)

Agree (3) N (%)
189 (42.1)

22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M = 2.25)

95 (21.2)

141 (31.4)

175 (39.0)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M = 1.85)

183 (40.8)

146 (32.5)

77 (17.1)

24. The investigations now conducted by NOPD’s Public 170 (37.9) Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair. (M = 1.86)

154 (34.3)

84 (18.7)

25. The way my Commander administers discipline is fair. (M = 2.88)

29 (6.5)

58 (12.9)

250 (55.7)

26. I understand clearly what type of behavior will result in discipline. (M = 3.06)

30 (6.7)

63 (14.0)

188 (41.9)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest 24 (5.3) mistake. (M = 3.20)

69 (15.4)

134 (29.8)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M = 3.12)

11 (2.4)

65 (14.5)

207 (46.1)

29. My career has been negatively affected by civilian complaints. (M = 2.19)

104 (23.2)

192 (42.8)

75 (16.7)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
17 (3.8) 14 (3.1) 20 (4.5) 13 (2.9) 66 (14.7) 147 (32.7) 204 (45.4) 139 (31.0) 55 (12.2)

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 88 of 119
Page 88 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1) N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)

30. The complaint system makes the Department more 72 (16.0) accountable to the public. (M = 2.41)

144 (32.1)

165 (36.7)

40 (8.9)

31. The Early Warning Program (PPEP) helps the Department identify risky behavior among officers. (M = 2.29)

89 (19.8)

152 (33.9)

154 (34.3)

30 (6.7)

32. The Early Warning Program (PPEP) helps the Department prevent police misconduct. (M = 2.13)

106 (23.6)

173 (38.5)

127 (28.3)

16 (3.6).

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 89 of 119
Page 89 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 10 - Distribution of Responses for Section 4: “Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

33. Officers in my district are respected by residents in 31 (6.9) the community. (M = 2.61)

Disagree (2) N (%)
114 (25.4)

Agree (3) N (%)
243 (54.1)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%)
17 (3.8)

34. Generally, NOPD receives more support from the community than a year ago. (M = 2.23)

70 (15.6)

189 (42.1)

122 (27.2)

20 (4.5)

35. The manner in which I interact with civilians influences the way the community perceives NOPD. (M = 3.38)

5 (1.1)

32 (7.1)

180 (40.1)

200 (44.5)

36. Law enforcement strategies in my district negatively affect community relations. (M = 2.22)

40 (8.9)

242 (53.9)

86 (19.2)

19 (4.2)

37. Police Community Coordinating (CoCo) Sergeants do valuable work for the Department. (M = 2.56)

61 (13.6)

95 (21.2)

177 (39.4)

49 (10.9)

38. Quality of Life Officers do valuable work for the Department. (M = 2.76)

45 (10.0)

72 (16.0)

225 (50.1)

64 (14.3)

39. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M = 2.61)

48 (10.7)

109 (24.3)

171 (38.1)

56 (12.5)

40. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M = 2.82)

41 (9.1)

89 (19.8)

188 (41.9)

81 (18.0)

42. The NOPD today is a better organization than it was 199 (44.3) three years ago. (M = 1.74)

139 (31.0)

50 (11.1)

22 (4.9)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 90 of 119
Page 90 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:
47. NOPD today brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law. (M = 3.07)

Strongly disagree (1) N (%) 14 (3.1)

Disagree (2) N (%) 43 (9.6)

Agree (3) N (%) 250 (55.7)

Strongly Agree (4) N (%) 99 (22.0)

51. Residents in the community I work in trust the NOPD. (M = 2.45)

43 (9.6)

148 (33.0)

186 (41.4)

16 (3.6)

52. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the 104 (23.2) police services. (M = 2.17)

139 (31.0)

131 (29.2)

21 (4.7)

Almost never (1)

43. The officers in my district/division treat all individuals (regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation) equally. (M = 3.12)

14 (3.1)

Only some of time (2) Most of the time (3) Always (4)

66 (14.7)

187 (41.6)

142 (31.6)

44. The officers in my district/division treat all individuals (regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation) fairly. (M = 3.15)

15 (3.3)

51 (11.4)

202 (45.0)

142 (31.6)

41. Overall, the services of the police in New Orleans are (M = 2.20)

Poor (1) 103 (22.9)

Fair (2) 153 (34.1)

Good (3) 142 (31.6)

Excellent (4) 22 (4.9)

Very badly (1)
48. Overall, how would you say that racial and ethnic 38 (8.5) groups in New Orleans are getting along with one other these days? (M = 2.67)

Somewhat badly (2) 88 (19.6)

Somewhat well (3) 255 (56.8)

Very well (4) 25 (5.6)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 91 of 119
Page 91 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly Agree (4)

N (%) No

N (%) Yes

N (%)

N (%)

49. Is there a group that is treated unfairly by officers in NOPD?

105 (23.4)

295 (65.7)

Note: Questions are not in the same order as the survey to allow for groupings of response categories. Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 92 of 119
Page 92 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 11 - Distribution of Responses for Section 5: “Expectations about the Police Role”

Response categories:
Survey questions (Mean in parentheses): 53. Testifying in court. (M = 4.61) 54. Handling drunk driving offenders. (M = 4.45) 55. Obtaining statements from witnesses. (M = 4.67) 56. Making arrests. (M = 4.10) 57. Dealing with domestic disputes. (M = 4.29) 58. Working with community to make neighborhoods safer. (M = 4.57) 59. Responding to calls for service. (M = 4.57) 60. Talking to civilians to help identify problems. (M = 4.50) 61. Dealing with street crime. (M = 4.64) 62. Completing criminal offense reports. (M = 4.47) 63. Conducting foot patrol. (M = 3.55) 64. Providing crime prevention education to the public.(M = 4.18) 65. Working with juveniles. (M = 4.24) 66. Conducting drug raids. (M = 4.16) 67. Maintaining crowd control. (M = 4.27) 68. Stopping and searching suspects. (M = 3.99)

Not Important Not

At All (1)

Important (2)

N (%)

N (%)

3 (0.7) 3 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 6 (1.3) 3 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 3 (0.7) 0 0 0 18 (4.0) 3 (0.7)
5 (1.1) 5 (1.1) 3 (0.7) 7 (1.6)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.9) 0 7 (1.6) 5 (1.1) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.4) 3 (0.7) 0 3 (0.7) 38 (8.5) 11 (2.4)
6 (1.3) 9 (2.0) 5 (1.1) 11 (2.4)

Not So Important (3) N (%)
10 (2.2) 26 (5.8) 7 (1.6) 74 (16.5) 46 (10.2) 14 (3.1) 10 (2.2) 20 (4.5) 8 (1.8) 23 (5.1) 140 (31.2) 51 (11.4)
54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 45 (10.0) 76 (16.9)

Important (4) N (%)
117 (26.1) 163 (36.3) 123 (27.4) 194 (43.2) 187 (41.6) 151 (33.6) 145 (32.3) 166 (37.0) 136 (30.3) 172 (38.3) 152 (33.9) 202 (45.0)
181 (40.3) 197 (43.9) 199 (44.3) 215 (47.9)

Very Important (5) N (%)
274 (61.0) 235 (52.3) 299 (66.6) 147 (32.7) 187 (41.6) 261 (58.1) 268 (59.7) 240 (53.5) 284 (63.3) 232 (51.7) 79 (17.6) 161 (35.9)
182 (40.5) 159 (35.4) 178 (39.6) 115 (25.6)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 93 of 119
Page 93 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:
69. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches. (M = 4.61) 70. Patrolling the streets. (M = 4.57) 71. General patrol duties. (M = 4.47) 72. General traffic duties. (M = 3.92)

Not Important Not

At All (1)

Important (2)

N (%) 1 (0.2)

N (%) 3 (0.7)

Not So Important (3)
N (%)
14 (3.1)

Important (4)
N (%) 127 (28.3)

Very Important (5)
N (%)
281 (62.6)

2 (0.4) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.9)

2 (0.4) 2 (0.4) 12 (2.7)

10 (2.2) 14 (3.1) 81 (18.0)

148 (33.0) 181 (40.3) 247 (55.0)

265 (59.0) 227 (50.6) 82 (18.3)

73. Controlling traffic. (M = 3.85)

5 (1.1)

15 (3.3)

96 (21.4)

231 (51.4) 78 (17.4)

74. Issuing traffic tickets. (M = 3.48)

11 (2.4)

32 (7.1)

172 (38.3) 160 (35.6) 49 (10.9)

75. Handling neighborhood disputes. (M = 4.16)

4 (0.9)

5 (1.1)

40 (8.9)

247 (55.0) 128 (28.5)

76. Controlling the crowds at public events. (M = 4.36)

6 (1.3)

7 (1.6)

30 (6.7)

167 (37.2) 217 (48.3)

77. Dealing with noisy parties. (M = 3.34)

17 (3.8)

34 (7.6)

194 (43.2) 143 (31.8) 35 (7.8)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 94 of 119
Page 94 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12 - Distribution of Responses for Section 6: “General Questions about the Public and the Department”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):

78. Many people in society will harm you if you give them the opportunity. (M = 3.22)
79. Most people are honest. (M = 3.18)
80. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer who needs assistance. (M = 3.11)
81. In general, you should be suspicious of people. (M = 3.19)
82. The community shows a lot of respect for the police. (M = 2.68)
83. Residents do not understand the problems that we face as police officers. (M = 4.36)
84. Many residents try to make us look bad. (M = 3.45)
85. Most civilians have confidence in the police. (M = 3.06)
86. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything. (M = 2.66)
87. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them. (M = 3.48)
88. Police officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much. (M = 3.70)
89. Rarely do officers get rewarded for doing a good job.(M = 4.25)

16 (3.6)
19 (4.2) 36 (8.0)
7 (1.6) 66 (14.7)
7 (1.6)
8 (1.8) 24 (5.3) 36 (8.0)
14 (3.1)
10 (2.2)
7 (1.6)

Disagree (2) N (%)
130 (29.0) 102 (22.7) 76 (16.9) 139 (31.0) 143 (31.8) 14 (3.1) 96 (21.4) 106 (23.6) 215 (47.9) 100 (22.3) 81 (18.0) 30 (6.7)

Not Sure (3) Agree (4)

N (%)

N (%)

Strongly Agree (5)
N (%)

87 (19.4)

136 (30.3) 61 (13.6)

110 (24.5) 147 (32.7)

183 (40.8) 154 (34.3)

18 (4.0) 21 (4.7)

78 (17.4) 94 (20.9)

176 (39.2) 123 (27.4)

29 (6.5) 7 (1.6)

23 (5.1)

161 (35.9) 229 (51.0)

94 (20.9) 134 (29.8) 59 (13.1)

161 (35.9) 152 (33.9) 93 (20.7)

72 (16.0) 15 (3.3) 24 (5.3)

78 (17.4)

143 (31.8) 97 (21.6)

66 (14.7)

143 (31.8) 128 (28.5)

21 (4.7)

164 (36.5) 209 (46.5)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 95 of 119
Page 95 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:
90. Landing a good assignment is based on whom you know. (M = 3.96) 91. If you make a mistake, the department will give you a second chance. (M = 2.33) 92. If you work hard, you can get ahead in NOPD. (M = 2.70) 93. Police officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M = 3.96) 94. In general, the news media treat the police fairly. (M = 1.74) 95. The media are interested in stories about the police only when a police officer gets in trouble. (M = 4.49)

Strongly disagree (1) N (%) 8 (1.8)
98 (21.8)
85 (18.9) 9 (2.0)
226 (50.3) 11 (2.4)

Disagree (2) N (%) 56 (12.5)
159 (35.4)
127 (28.3) 36 (8.0)
136 (30.3) 13 (2.9)

Not Sure (3) N (%) 54 (12.0)

Agree (4) N (%) 139 (31.0)

109 (24.3) 54 (12.0)

78 (17.4) 87 (19.4)

111 (24.7) 127 (28.3)

32 (7.1) 18 (4.0)

25 (5.6) 100 (22.3)

Strongly Agree (5) N (%) 171 (38.1)
8 (1.8)
28 (6.2) 170 (37.9)
11 (2.4) 286 (63.7)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 96 of 119
Page 96 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 13 - Respondent Characteristics

N

Missing

Average or percent Minimum Maximum

Years of service

311

138

16.36

1

45

Rank: Police officer Detective Sergeant Lt. or Capt. Commander

355

94

--

198

--

44.1%

56

--

12.5%

59

--

13.1%

28

--

6.2%

14

--

3.1%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Reside in New Orleans:

378

Yes

145

No

233

71

--

--

32.3%

--

51.9%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Sex: Female Male

352

97

--

54

--

12.0%

298

--

66.4%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Age

266

183

43.7

24

67

Hispanic: Yes No

313

136

--

15

--

3.3%

298

--

66.4%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Racial minority: Yes No

300

149

--

180

--

40.1%

120

--

26.7%

--

--

--

--

--

--

Racial group breakdown:

300

White

120

African American

149

Asian

5

Vietnamese

3

Latino

4

Other

19

149

--

--

26.7%

--

33.2%

--

1.1%

--

0.7%

--

0.9%

--

4.2%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 97 of 119 Page 97 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 2 COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 98 of 119
Page 98 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 14 - Community survey respondent demographic characteristics

N

Gender

Male

270

Female

264

Age

18-24

28

25-34

133

35-44

112

45-54

102

55-64

86

65+

71

Race/ethnicity

Black

277

White

208

Asian

7

Hispanic

14

Other

20

Education

Grade school

9

Grade 9 to 11

51

High school

135

Some college

122

College degree

139

Graduate/professional degree

70

Marital status

Single

222

Married

184

Divorced

64

Widowed

32

Partnered

27

Rent or own home

Own

260

Rent

243

Born in New Orleans

Yes

345

No

182

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

%
49.2% 48.1%
5.1% 24.2% 20.4% 18.6% 15.7% 12.9%
50.5% 37.9% 1.3% 2.6% 3.6%
1.6% 9.3% 24.6% 22.2% 25.3% 12.8%
40.4% 33.5% 11.7% 5.8% 4.9%
47.4% 44.3%
62.8% 33.2%

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 99 of 119
Page 99 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 15 - Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%)

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy. (M = 2.68; N = 311)
2. I had confidence the police officer was following the correct police procedure. (M = 2.69; N = 311)
3. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved. (M = 2.67; N = 313)
4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by the police officer. (M = 3.18; N = 303)
5. The police officer treated me with dignity. (M = 2.73; N = 311)
6. The police officer treated me with respect. (M = 2.74; N = 312)
7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me. (M = 2.73; N = 313)
8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer adequately explained the reasons why. (M = 2.65; N = 211)1
9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to express my view. (M = 2.55; N = 206) 1
10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. (M = 2.60; N = 207) 1
11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer. (M = 2.58; N = 227)
1
12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience with the police. (M = 2.57; N = 206) 1

31 (9.6) 21 (6.5) 31 (9.6) 3 (0.9) 32 (9.9) 24 (7.5) 27 (8.4) 20 (9.5) 24 (11.4) 28 (13.3) 28 (13.3) 26 (12.3)

78 (24.2)

163 (50.6)

39 (12.1)

92 (28.6)

159 (49.4)

39 (12.1)

80 (24.8) 14 (4.3)

163 (50.6) 212 (65.8)

39 (12.1) 74 (23.0)

69 (21.4) 76 (23.6) 78 (24.2) 57 (27.0)

162 (50.3) 168 (52.2) 162 (50.3) 110 (52.1)

48 (14.9) 44 (13.7) 46 (14.3) 24 (11.4)

63 (29.9)

100 (47.4)

19 (9.0)

55 (26.1) 53 (25.1)

96 (45.5) 104 (49.3)

28 (13.3) 22 (10.4)

60 (28.4)

96 (45.5)

24 (11.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned” (N = 211).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor
Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 100 of 119
Page 100 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 16 - Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD

Response categories:
1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers follow the law. (M = 2.50; N = 529)
2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low. (M = 2.22; N = 528)
3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police officers. (M = 2.75; N = 533)
4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of the City of New Orleans. (M = 3.17; N = 524)
5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD. (M = 2.43; N = 506)
6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department has become a better police department. (M = 2.30; N = 510)
7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job. (M = 2.29; N = 526)
8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely manner. (M = 2.02; N = 526)
9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood now has more confidence in the NOPD. (M = 2.40; N = 507)
10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not solved by the police. (M = 2.38; N = 504)

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%) 55 (10.0) 98 (17.9) 40 (7.3) 17 (3.1)
51 (9.3)
93 (16.9)
81 (14.8)
155 (28.2) 61 (11.1)
Strongly agree (1)
58 (10.6)

Disagree (2) N (%)
178 (32.4) 243 (44.3) 128 (23.3) 69 (12.6)
214 (39.0)
192 (35.0)
233 (42.4) 219 (39.9) 203 (37.0)
Agree (2) 234 (42.6)

Agree (3) N (%)
275 (50.1) 161 (29.3) 291 (53.0) 248 (45.2)
215 (39.2)
206 (37.5)
193 (35.2) 136 (24.8) 225 (41.0)
Disagree (3) 176 (32.1)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%) 21 (3.8) 26 (4.7) 74 (13.5) 190 (34.6)
26 (4.7)
19 (3.5)
19 (3.5)
16 (2.9) 18 (3.3)
Strongly disagree (4)
36 (6.6)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 101 of 119
Page 101 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime in New Orleans. (M = 2.37; N = 523)

54 (9.8)

244 (44.4)

200 (36.4)

25 (4.6)

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in the New Orleans Police Department. (M = 1.85; N = 526)

170 (31.0)

283 (51.5)

57 (10.4)

16 (2.9)

Note: Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 102 of 119
Page 102 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 17 - Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

Response categories:

Strongly disagree
(1)
N (%)

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part, honest. (M = 2.47; N = 527)

70 (12.8)

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other police 80 (14.6) departments in terms of integrity. (M = 2.21; N = 506)

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair. (M = 2.41; N = 534)

73 (13.3)

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional. (M = 2.42; N = 531)

70 (12.8)

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities. (M = 2.29; N = 519)

81 (14.8)

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat me fairly. (M = 2.50; N = 538)

59 (10.7)

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime very well. (M = 2.34; N = 509)

72 (13.1)

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to win the confidence of the public to be effective. (M = 2.86; N = 532)

31 (5.6)

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans. (M = 2.27; N = 518)

95 (17.3)

10. I trust the NOPD. (M = 2.38; N = 529)

104 (18.9)

11. I have confidence in the NOPD. (M = 2.35; N = 526)

86 (15.7)

12. I respect the NOPD. (M = 2.71; N = 534)

55 (10.0)

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law. (M = 3.26; N = 532)
14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions. (M = 2.50; N = 525)
15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for legitimate reasons. (M = 2.36; N = 503)
16. During routine encounters with members of the public, NOPD officers use appropriate language. (M = 2.61; N = 513)

14 (2.6) 51 (9.3) 70 (12.8) 40 (7.3)

Disagree (2)
N (%)
159 (29.0) 260 (47.4) 186 (33.9) 189 (34.4) 236 (43.0) 182 (33.2) 207 (37.7) 116 (21.1)
212 (38.6)
157 (28.6) 197 (35.9) 115 (20.9) 31 (5.6)
185 (33.7) 206 (37.5) 147 (26.8)

Agree (3)
N (%)
277 (50.5) 146 (26.6) 256 (46.6) 253 (46.1) 175 (31.9) 264 (48.1) 216 (39.3) 280 (51.0)
187 (34.1)
232 (42.3) 216 (39.3) 295 (53.7) 288 (52.5) 267 (48.6) 202 (36.8) 299 (54.5)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%) 21 (3.8) 20 (3.6) 19 (3.5) 19 (3.5) 27 (4.9) 33 (6.0) 14 (2.6)
105 (19.1) 24 (4.4)
36 (6.6) 27 (4.9) 69 (12.6)
199 (36.2) 22 (4.0) 25 (4.6) 27 (4.9)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 103 of 119
Page 103 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:
17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that is not degrading when interacting with citizens. (M = 2.54; N = 508)
18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people as a form of harassment. (M = 2.32; N = 506)

Strongly disagree
(1) N (%) 41 (7.5)
Strongly agree (1)
79 (14.4)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly agree (4)

N (%)
171 (31.1)

N (%)
275 (50.1)

N (%) 21 (3.8)

Agree (2)
207 (37.7)

Disagree (3)
200 (36.4)

Strongly disagree
(4)
20 (3.6)

Note: Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 104 of 119
Page 104 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 18 - Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD

Response categories:
1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD. (M = 2.94; N = 524)

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)
23 (4.2)

Disagree (2) N (%)
102 (18.6)

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who is suspected of having committed a crime. (M = 2.58; N = 519)

59 (10.7)

147 (26.8)

Strongly agree (1)

Agree (2)

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became aware of a crime. (M = 2.80; N = 521)

43 (7.8)

109 (19.9)

Agree (3) N (%)
284 (51.7)
268 (48.8)
Disagree (3) 280 (51.0)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%) 115 (20.9)
45 (8.2)
Strongly disagree (4)
89 (16.2)

Note: Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 105 of 119
Page 105 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 19 - Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%)

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their actions. (M = 3.47; N = 535)

6 (1.1)

14 (2.6)

239 (43.5) 276 (50.3)

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed. (M = 3.39; N = 536)

7 (1.3)

23 (4.2)

262 (47.7) 244 (44.4)

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when dealing with the public. (M = 3.46; N = 534)

5 (0.9)

13 (2.4)

248 (45.2) 268 (48.8)

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect. (M = 3.56; N = 535)

7 (1.3)

5 (0.9)

204 (37.2) 319 (58.1)

5. The NOPD should be interested in the wellbeing of ordinary citizens. (M = 3.47; N = 532)
6. Working conditions for police officers in New Orleans are good. (M = 2.30; N = 512)

5 (0.9)

20 (3.6)

228 (41.5) 279 (50.8)

61 (11.1)

258 (47.0) 170 (31.0) 23 (4.2)

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers have ready access to language interpretation services to help communicate with those who does [sic] not speak English. (M = 2.42; N = 435)

38 (6.9)

185 (33.7) 203 (37.0) 9 (1.6)

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking officers who can interact with Spanish speaking suspects. (M = 2.22; N = 416)

48 (8.7)

238 (43.4) 121 (22.0) 9 (1.6)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 106 of 119
Page 106 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 20 - Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Disagree (2)
N (%)

Agree (3) N (%)

Strongly agree (4)
N (%)

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the African American community fairly. (M = 2.10; N = 506)

113 (20.6) 235 (42.8) 151 (27.5) 7 (1.3)

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino community fairly. (M = 2.29; N = 452)

62 (11.3) 208 (37.9) 173 (31.5) 9 (1.6)

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly. (M = 2.52; N = 442)

38 (6.9) 163 (29.7) 213 (38.8) 28 (5.1)

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly. (M = 2.31; N = 446)

56 (10.2) 201 (36.6) 182 (33.2) 7 (1.3)

Strongly agree (1)

Agree (2)

Disagree (3)

Strongly disagree
(4)

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear reporting a crime due to fear of deportation. (M = 2.85; N = 430)

16 (2.9)

94 (17.1) 257 (46.8) 63 (11.5)

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial profiling. (M = 2.19; N = 496)

92 (16.8) 240 (43.7) 142 (25.9) 22 (4.0)

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects to be harassed by the NOPD. (M = 2.09; N = 499)

109 (19.9) 262 (47.7) 102 (18.6) 26 (4.7)

8. The African American community in New Orleans does not believe the NOPD is credible. (M = 2.08; N = 503)

97 (17.7) 294 (53.6) 88 (16.0) 24 (4.4)

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD toward the African American community. (M = 2.09; N = 490)

113 (20.6) 236 (43.0) 123 (22.4) 18 (3.3)

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community does not have confidence in the NOPD. (M = 2.34; N = 442)

51 (9.3) 202 (36.8) 175 (31.9) 14 (2.6)

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated poorly by the NOPD. (M = 2.18; N = 488)

107 (19.5)

205 (37.3) 157 (28.6)

19 (3.5)

Note: Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement).Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 107 of 119 Page 107 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 3 DETAINEE SURVEY DATA
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 108 of 119
Page 108 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 21 - Detainee survey respondent demographic characteristics

N

Gender

Male

46

Female

11

Age (range = 18 to 67)

57

Race/ethnicity

White

7

Black

40

Latino

2

Vietnamese

1

Other

7

Live in New Orleans

Yes

46

No

11

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

% of Mean
79.3% 19.0%
35.61
12.1% 69.0% 3.4% 1.7% 12.1%
79.3% 19.0%

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 109 of 119
Page 109 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 22 - Detainees’ attitudes toward with NOPD officers (specifically) and police officers (generally)

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

N (%)

1. NOPD officers do the right thing. (M = 2.64; N = 58)
2. Generally, police officers do the right thing. (M = 2.93; N = 58)
3. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers conduct themselves. (M = 2.60; N = 58)
4. NOPD officers treat me with respect. (M = 2.69; N = 58)
5. NOPD officers are polite when dealing with me. (M = 2.74; N = 57)
6. NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the public. (M = 2.91; N = 57)
7. NOPD officers listen to me. (M = 2.53; N = 57)
8. I am satisfied with how I am treated by NOPD. (M = 2.51; N = 57)
9. I am satisfied with the outcome of my experiences with NOPD. (M = 2.30; N = 57)
10. I trust the police generally. (M = 2.07; N = 57)
11. I have confidence in the police generally. (M = 2.42; N = 57)

10 (17.2) 5 (8.6) 6 (10.3)
10 (17.2) 8 (13.8) 7 (12.1) 10 (17.2) 10 (17.2) 14 (24.1) 21 (36.2) 13 (22.4)

12. I am satisfied with the way police do their job generally. (M = 2.61; N = 57)
13. I think NOPD is highly competent. (M = 2.68; N = 57)

8 (13.8) 8 (13.8)

Disagree (2)
N (%) 17 (29.3) 17 (29.3) 25 (43.1)
17 (29.3) 20 (34.5)
9 (15.5)
22 (37.9) 22 (37.9)
22 (37.9)
17 (29.3) 20 (34.5) 19 (32.8)
18 (31.0)

Neither agree/disagree
(3)
N (%)

Agree (4) N (%)

16 (27.6)

14 (24.1)

14 (24.1)

21 (36.2)

13 (22.4)

14 (24.1)

13 (22.4) 9 (15.5)

17 (29.3) 19 (32.8)

23 (39.7)

18 (31.0)

10 (17.2) 13 (22.4)

15 (25.9) 10 (17.2)

12 (20.7)

8 (13.8)

13 (22.4) 11 (19.0) 17 (29.3)

6 (10.3) 13 (22.4) 13 (22.4)

15 (25.9)

16 (27.6)

Strongly agree (5)
N (%) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 0 (0.0)
1 (1.7) 1 (1.7)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0) 2 (3.4)
1 (1.7)
0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 110 of 119
Page 110 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Neither agree/disagree
(3)

Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 111 of 119
Page 111 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 23 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful treatment

Response categories:

Highly unprofessional
(1)
N (%)

Mostly unprofessional
(2)
N (%)

Somewhat unprofessional
(3)
N (%)

Mostly professional
(4)
N (%)

Highly professional
(5)
N (%)

1. How would you describe the professionalism of the NOPD? (M = 2.72; N = 57)
2. How would you describe changes in the professionalism of the NOPD over the past three years? (M = 2.91; N = 46)
3. How would you describe the relations between the NOPD and your community? (M = 2.75; N = 55)
4. Compared with three years ago, how would you describe the relations between the NOPD and your community? (M = 3.11; N = 45)
5. How many of the NOPD officers you encounter treat you, your friends, and your family members with respect? (M = 3.00; N = 56)

6 (10.3)
Much less professional
today (1) 9 (15.5)
Very negative (1)
14 (24.1)
Much worse (1)
3 (5.2)
Almost none treat us with respect (1)
8 (13.8)

12 (20.7)
Somewhat less professional today (2) 4 (6.9)
Somewhat negative (2)
8 (13.8)
Somewhat worse (2)
4 (6.9)
Most do not treat us with respect (2)
10 (17.2)

32 (55.2)
About the same as three years ago (3)
18 (31.0)
Neither positive nor negative (3)
13 (22.5)
About the same (3) 26 (44.8)
About same treat with respect as do
not (3) 18 (31.0)

6 (10.3)

1 (1.7)

Somewhat more
professional today (4)

Much more professional
today (5)

12 (20.7)

3 (5.2)

Somewhat

Very

positive (4) positive (5)

18 (31.0)

5 (3.4)

Somewhat better (4)
9 (15.5)

Much better (5)
3 (5.2)

Most treat us with
respect (4)
14 (24.1)

Almost all treat us with respect
(5)
6 (10.3)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 112 of 119
Page 112 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Much less Somewhat less respectful (1) respectful (2)

About the same (3)

6. How would you describe the way NOPD treats you, your friends, and your family members compared with three years ago? (M = 3.04; N = 46)

4 (6.9)

4 (6.9)

26 (44.8)

Somewhat more
respectful (4)
10 (17.2)

Much more respectful
(5)
2 (3.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 113 of 119
Page 113 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 24 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD treatment of people from different races and genders

Response categories:

Almost never (1)
N (%)

Some of the time (2)
N (%)

Most of the time (3)
N (%)

Almost all of the time (4)
N (%)

1. Does the NOPD treat people from different races the same? (M = 1.96; N = 46)

18 (31.0)

17 (29.3)

6 (10.3)

5 (8.6)

2. Does the NOPD treat people from different genders the same? (M = 2.00; N = 39)

17 (29.3)

11 (19.0)

5 (8.6)

6 (10.3)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 114 of 119
Page 114 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 25 - Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD job quality

Response categories:

Terrible (1) N (%)

Bad (2) N (%)

Neither good nor bad (3)
N (%)

Good (4) N (%)

Excellent (5)
N (%)

1. Overall, how well do you think the NOPD is doing its job today? (M = 2.49; N = 57)

17 (29.3)

8 (13.8)

21 (36.2)

9 (15.5)

2 (3.4)

Much worse Somewhat

(1)

worse (2)

About the same (3)

Somewhat improved
(4)

Much improved
(5)

2. Compared with three years ago, how do you think the NOPD has changed the quality of the job they perform? (M = 3.08; N = 40)

6 (10.3)

5 (8.6)

13 (22.4) 12 (20.7)

4 (6.9)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 115 of 119 Page 115 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 4 CANINE DATA
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 116 of 119 Page 116 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 117 of 119
Page 117 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 5 ADDITIONAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The first stage of the Community Survey sampling procedure began with neighborhoods with 20 of them being randomly chosen from the city’s 72 neighborhoods as determined by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC). 16 First, a sampling interval was calculated by taking the total number of households in New Orleans (142,158) and dividing it by 20, the number of neighborhoods wanted for the sample. The sampling interval came to every 7,108th housing unit being chosen as a sampling point.
Next, the number 2,024 was drawn from a table of random numbers, determining the starting point for the sample and also establishing the designated housing unit of the first neighborhood. 17 The starting point and the sampling interval were then added together to provide the designated housing unit of the second neighborhood (2,024 + 7,108 = 9,132 households). The interval was added in again to determine the designated housing unit of the third neighborhood. This process was continued until all 20 neighborhoods had a designated housing unit. The selected neighborhoods and their associated demographic characteristics are found in Tables 26 and 27.

16

http://www.datacenterresearch.org/maps/reference-maps/

17

Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar, p. 86.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 118 of 119
Page 118 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 26 Neighborhood

AfricanAmerican

White

Hispanic

Household Income

People living in poverty

Audubon Behrman Bywater City Park East Riverside French Quarter Gentilly Woods Lake Terrace & Oaks Leonidas Little Woods Lower Garden District Marlyville/Fontainebleau Milan Old Aurora Plum Orchard Seventh Ward St. Claude Tall Timbers/Brechtel U.S. Naval Support Area West End

4.8% 81.5% 33.1% 7.6% 41.4% 4.4% 69.3% 25.9% 62.0% 92.6% 18.9% 23.9% 59.0% 54.5% 95.7% 87.4% 81.1% 69.8% 67.0% 11.0%

85.0% 8.4% 56.1% 82.9% 50.0% 87.6% 23.0% 57.1% 30.7% 3.0% 67.2% 63.9% 32.3% 35.6% 0.8% 6.6% 14.0% 21.4% 24.0% 74.6%

5.0% 7.3% 6.7% 6.1% 5.4% 3.8% 2.2% 8.0% 4.4% 2.3% 8.2% 6.0% 6.0% 5.6% 2.5% 3.8% 3.1% 4.6% 6.0% 8.3%

$134,503 $39,944 $43,504 $70,853 $52,538 $95,246 $42,061 $132,629 $48,563 $43,849 $94,332 $85,352 $59,215 $66,498 $33,973 $32,442 $28,149 $56,165 $42,289 $94,606

18.0% 23.3% 24.4% 11.0% 26.8% 7.2% 24.5% 11.0% 31.4% 25.4% 20.6% 17.6% 24.3% 14.1% 20.7% 44.1% 46.7% 26.5% 22.9% 17.7%

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 436-1 Filed 04/28/15 Page 119 of 119
Page 119 of 119 April 28, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 27 - Sample Goals by Race or Ethnicity and Gender

Male Female Total

Black 72,750 91,587 164,337

White 49,443 48,753 98,196

Asian 4,363 4,427 8,790

Hispanic 8,966 6,641
15,607

Other 2,775 1,440 4,215

Total 138,297 152,848 291,145

%Black %White %Asian %Hispanic %Other

Male

25.0% 17.0% 1.5%

3.1% 1.0%

Female 31.5% 16.7% 1.5%

2.3% 0.5%

Male Female Total

Black 150 189 339

White 102 100 202

Asian 9 9 18

Hispanic 18 14 32

Other 6 3 9

Total 285 315 600

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 135
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree October 2, 2015
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 135

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
October 2, 2015

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS QUARTER
 The Monitoring Team continued to review policies, procedures, and training. We also performed a special, in-depth review of NOPD’s supervision practices and its officer selection practices. We published special reports highlighting our findings in those areas. In addition, among other things, the Monitoring Team conducted assessments of Body Worn Camera usage, uses of force, use of force record keeping, vehicle pursuits, and PIB’s handling of administrative investigations. We also provided technical assistance to the Academy and to the PIB Force Investigations Team.
WHAT WE FOUND
 NOPD rolled out an impressive Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) program, including drafting policies, assigning a dedicated program manager, providing train-the-trainer sessions, and conducting its first training of CIT officers.
 The Department hired a full time program director to develop, initiate, and roll-out the Consent Decree-required Officer Assistance & Support program.
 While recent progress has been made at the Academy, the speed of change earlier this year was slow. Even with the recent progress, lesson plans still have not been approved, instructors still have not been evaluated, and a training manual still has not been developed.
 NOPD’s use of force investigations and record keeping practices have improved in some respects, but more improvement is necessary, especially in the area of administrative investigations of serious uses of force.
 NOPD has improved its data keeping for vehicle pursuits, but still has room for further improvement.
 Most police districts have achieved substantial compliance with the Consent Decree Photographic Line-up requirements, but many still are lagging in the area of Custodial Interrogations.
 The Department’s handling of the investigation, manhunt, arrest, and processing of the alleged killer of Officer Daryle Holloway was professional, ethical, and compliant with the Consent Decree.
NEXT QUARTER’S ACTIVITIES
 Conduct follow-up audit of PIB’s administrative investigations to assess improvements against the baseline established this quarter.
 Conduct follow-up audit of BWC use and related discipline.
 Work with NOPD and the Department of Justice to agree upon objective compliance measurements for each paragraph of the Consent Decree.
 Continue providing technical assistance to and monitoring progress at the NOPD Academy, including new officer training, in-service training, and the FTO program.
 Continue reviewing policies, reviewing lesson plans, monitoring training, and personally observing officers in the field.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 135
Page 3 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY
“The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period;
b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice;
c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request;
d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance;
e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and
f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 135 Page 4 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. NOTES
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 135 Page 5 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ........................................................................................................................ 3 II. Notes................................................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 7 V. Introduction to Quarterly Report.......................................................................................................... 9 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities..................................................................................................... 13 VII. Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 VIII. Use of Force Review............................................................................................................................. 18
A. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................18 B. Reporting Use of Force ........................................................................................................................20
1. Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 20 2. Officers Compliance with Reporting Requirements ....................................................... 22 3. Supervisor’s Investigation of Reported Use of Force ..................................................... 24 4. Quality of Force Statement & Use of Force Reports........................................................ 27 C. Summary of Our Findings on Select Elements of Use of Force Events .............................31 1. How events resulting in force were initiated .................................................................... 31 2. Outcomes of application of force – Injuries to officer .................................................... 34 3. Outcomes of application of force – Injuries to subject .................................................. 35 4. Supervisor Responds to the Scene ........................................................................................ 36 5. Supervisor Interviews of Subjects of Uses of Force ........................................................ 37 6. Supervisor’s Findings ................................................................................................................. 38 D. Critical Firearms Discharges .............................................................................................................38 E. Quality of FIT Investigations .............................................................................................................40 1. Criminal Investigation ................................................................................................................ 40 2. Administrative Investigations................................................................................................. 41 3. FIT Administrative Section Investigation Guide .............................................................. 44 F. Force Factor Analysis ...........................................................................................................................45 IX. Vehicle Pursuits......................................................................................................................................... 48

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 135
Page 6 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
X. Crisis Intervention Team ....................................................................................................................... 50 XI. Policing Free of Gender Bias ................................................................................................................ 54 XII. Community Engagement (CD 223-233)....................................................................................... 56
A. Community Engagement Survey .....................................................................................................56 B. Availability of Information .................................................................................................................60 C. Mardi Gras Indians ................................................................................................................................61 XIII. Community Survey (CD 223-233) .................................................................................................. 63 XIV. Training (CD 245-288) ....................................................................................................................... 65 XV. Officer Assistance & Support ............................................................................................................ 68 XVI. Supervision (CD XV) ............................................................................................................................ 69 A. Custodial Interrogations .....................................................................................................................69 B. Photographic Line-Ups ........................................................................................................................69 C. Body Worn Cameras .............................................................................................................................70 D. Camera Discipline..................................................................................................................................70 E. In-Car Cameras .......................................................................................................................................72 F. Supervisor Work Load .........................................................................................................................72 XVII. Signal code review ........................................................................................................................... 73 XVIII. Agreement Implementation And Enforcement (Cd 444 – 492) ..................................... 75 A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459) .....................................................................................................75 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)...........................................................75 C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)...............................................................................75 XIX. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 77 XX. Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 79 Appendix 1 -- Vehicle Pursuit Data .........................................................................................................80 Appendix 2 Community Survey: Demographic Breakdown Analysis........................................84 Appendix 3 N.O.P.D. EDUCATION AND TRAINING DIVISION .................................................... 135

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 7 of 135
Page 7 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DVU” “ECW” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 8 of 135
Page 8 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 9 of 135
Page 9 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. INTRODUCTION TO QUARTERLY REPORT
This report marks the end of NOPD’s second year under the Consent Decree, as measured from the appointment of the Monitoring Team on August 9, 2013. And while NOPD still has a long road ahead of it, it has made notable progress in several areas, particularly in the past year. For example:
 NOPD’s policy drafting and vetting process is much improved and, as a result, its policies are much improved. Several policies already have been approved by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team, and several more have been submitted and are awaiting approval. While drafting, vetting, and revising policies is an inherently slow process, NOPD clearly has made significant progress in this area.
 The NOPD Academy has new, competent leadership; lesson plans are being developed in an organized fashion; teachers are being trained, video-taped, and evaluated; and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has come through with additional technical assistance (at DOJ’s expense) to help the Academy improve several of its courses. To be clear, the Academy still has a long way to go to come into full compliance with the Consent Decree, but NOPD’s recent progress in this area is nonetheless notable.
 The NOPD Compliance Bureau has proven itself to be extremely effective. The Monitoring Team has been working closely with each member of the Compliance Bureau and looks forward to working closely with the Bureau’s new director, Deputy Chief Tim Averill. At the outset of our monitorship, we identified the lack of a Compliance Bureau as one of the key obstacles in front of NOPD and its efforts to promote compliance with the Consent Decree. We now can say without hesitation the Compliance Bureau is one of the key forces of change and reform within the NOPD.
 A Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) program has been developed, an energetic and skilled leader has been engaged to run it, an impressive train-the-trainer session was conducted by outside experts, and training of CIT officers has begun. The program is modeled after an extremely effective program that has been in place for years in Memphis. On September 17, 2015, 24 men and women graduated from the program as NOPD’s first class of specially trained CIT officers. The program is one about which NOPD should be quite proud. The Monitoring Team is confident the program will make a material difference in the lives of mental health “consumers,” police officers, and citizens generally.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 10 of 135
Page 10 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 After a slow start, NOPD now has a full-time Officer Assistance and Support (“OA&S”) program manager. Led by a civilian mental health professional, Cecile Tebo, the program will fill a huge gap in the support NOPD historically has given its officers. While much work still needs to be done in this area to develop and roll out the actual programs supporting officers, the appointment of Ms. Tebo represents a material step forward.
 The Office of Police Secondary Employment has been up and running for some time, and officer resistance to the program has gone way down. While we acknowledge some within NOPD (and even some within the business community) are not thrilled with having police details now centrally coordinated and monitored, the program does seem to be working as evidenced by the increasing number of officer participants and customers.
 NOPD continues set a good example for departments across the country in the implementation of Body Worn Cameras. And it must be acknowledged, NOPD moved forward in this area even though BWCs were not required by the Consent Decree. Not only has NOPD outfitted all its patrol officers with BWCs, but most officers are using their cameras consistently now, and capturing important information. Indeed, the Monitoring Team’s ongoing reviews of camera recordings gives us confidence camera use by officers is becoming the norm. Implementation of any new technology takes time and effort and NOPD has made important progress.
 On the technology front, NOPD recently remedied a significant gap identified by the Monitoring Team involving in-car cameras. One of our prior audits identified that many in-cameras were not working and/or not recording. NOPD subsequently traced the problem to a lack of server capacity and/or outdated servers. While this technological went uncorrected for far too long in our view, as of August 2015, the City completed the installation of new servers throughout the Department, which has greatly reduced the number of non-functional cameras in the Department’s cars.
NOPD’s most notable achievement in our view, however, is not technological, but rather human. Over the course of the last year or so, the Monitoring Team has noticed a palpable transformation in the attitude of NOPD management toward change, the Consent Decree, and the work of the Monitoring Team generally. Rather than pushing back at every turn, most within NOPD with whom we deal seem to have embraced change, reform, and improvement. NOPD leadership now seems genuinely committed to reform. While we continue to run into disagreements from time to time, and while we remain not fully satisfied with the pace of change, we rarely are given cause anymore to question the Department’s commitment to achieving full and sustained compliance with all elements of the Consent Decree.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 11 of 135
Page 11 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Of course, NOPD and the Monitoring Team still have much work to do. Unfortunately, the time spent during the first year of the Consent Decree arguing with NOPD and the City over the need for a Consent Decree, undoing a dysfunctional policy drafting process, working without a Compliance Bureau, dealing with non-existent Academy leadership, and wading through a culture of “well, that’s how we do it here” delayed change and, thus, NOPD’s accomplishments. And even now, notwithstanding the significant progress listed above, NOPD continues to lag in some areas, including supervision, training, and recruit selection. For example:
 As described in our Quarterly Report dated April 28, 2015, several police districts continue not to maintain adequate records to demonstrate compliance with a variety of Consent Decree requirements, and many supervisors continue to lack the time – and some may lack the interest and/or the skill –to provide close and effective supervision to their officers.
 As discussed at the public court hearing in February 2015, NOPD’s training program still needs a lot of work. The Academy continues to operate without approved lesson plans, a meaningful evaluation of its current instructors, and a comprehensive strategic plan to remedy known shortcomings. The quality of the instruction, the materials, and the curriculum also remains inconsistent. While, as noted above, we have seen recent progress in all these areas, more work needs to be done, and it needs to be done faster.
 As described in our recent Special Report focusing on NOPD’s hiring process, the Monitoring Team has identified multiple shortcomings in the way NOPD selects its new officers. In short, we took issue with the Department’s multiple-choice exam, its written exam, and its new interview process. Specifically with respect to the interview process, while we recognized significant improvements, we criticized the City’s unwillingness to allow its interviewer’s to ask clarifying questions, follow-up on partial answers, and probe the candidate for relevant information. The process’s hyper-rigidity prevents the process from helping NOPD identify the best recruits, but rather serves more to screen out bad candidates. It is a least common-denominator process that poorly serves NOPD’s mission to recruit those individuals most likely to personify the professional police force the Department is trying to build and New Orleans deserves.1

1

We would be remiss here if we did not mention one impressive improvement to the new officer

selection process implemented by NOPD with the assistance of the local business community. NOPD

now involves private sector Human Resource professionals on the recruit interview panels. The

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 12 of 135 Page 12 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 And as described later in this report, the Department’s use of force record keeping and its vehicle pursuit record keeping need further attention.
One other area where NOPD still has room for improvement is the professionalism of some of its officers. To be clear, most of the officers and supervisors we come across (either in person or through watching BWC videos) are professional, helpful, and committed to the community they serve. But there remains a small subset whose attitude is unbecoming of a modern police department. We recognize no large organization ever will rid itself of all unprofessional personnel, but NOPD must continue to work hard to reduce the impact of those officers upon the Department. As one professional psychologist recently put it at a meeting with NOPD leadership, “it is high time for the good kids to take back the school yard.” By refocusing and re-energizing its efforts at recruiting, hiring, training, and supervision, NOPD can ensure that happens.
Against this backdrop, this third year is a critical one for NOPD. The Department needs to focus its energy like never before and accelerate its progress. To help NOPD move forward, the Monitoring Team is in the process of working closely with the Compliance Bureau to ensure the Department has clear, objective standards for each of its various Consent Decree obligations – something that only became possible with the recent change in the attitude of the Department’s leadership. We are confident NOPD can build upon its recent achievements, accelerate its progress in other areas, and turn prior failures into opportunities. This is an exciting time for NOPD and for the citizens of New Orleans.
Monitoring Team has met with many of these professionals and has been extremely impressed with their knowledge, skill, and commitment to the Department. Indeed, the Monitoring Team currently is working with several of the professionals to devise ways to remedy the remaining shortcomings of NOPD’s selection process.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 13 of 135
Page 13 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This quarter, like the last, involved a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessments. Among many other things, our team spent the last quarter performing the following monitoring activities:
 We continued to work with the Department of Justice and the NOPD to review and revise NOPD’s policies to ensure full compliance with the Consent Decree and to incorporate best practices.
 We reviewed serious use of force reports, including the contemporaneous officer reports, supervisor reports, the subsequent Force Investigations Team (“FIT”) investigation file, and relevant video footage. Where we had questions or concerns about an investigation, we brought the matter to the attention of the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) and the NOPD Compliance Bureau.
 We provided specialized training to the NOPD Use of Force Review Board members and FIT to help them move closer to full compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree.
 We reviewed and monitored a number of ongoing PIB investigations.
 We conducted regular district-by-district and unit-by-unit audits of compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements relating to photographic lineups, custodial interrogations, supervision, camera use, technology functionality, and training. In July, Judge Morgan accompanied the Monitoring Team on these audits in several districts to assess NOPD’s compliance efforts for herself.
 We attended Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”) meetings to assess and help facilitate the development of comprehensive sexual assault and domestic violence policies and procedures.
 We attended disciplinary hearings to evaluate the fairness of the hearing, the appropriateness of the discipline, and overall compliance with the Consent Decree.
 We gave significant attention to the NOPD Academy, meeting with the new Academy commander, the new Curriculum Director, a new Lieutenant serving as the Academy’s Training Officer/Coordinator, other Academy staff, and several instructors on multiple occasions. We also personally observed training at the Academy, as well as outside training conducted by experts in

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 14 of 135
Page 14 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
various fields, including recently implemented instructor training conducted by the FBI. Additionally, the Monitoring Team engaged with VCPI, a consulting group made available to the NOPD by the U.S. Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing office.
 The Monitoring Team observed NOPD officers and supervisors in the field, in all districts and during all shifts. We did this on weekdays and weekends. We also personally observed NOPD’s handling of its major events.
 We performed an initial audit of PIB’s administrative investigation processes and practices. The results of this initial audit will serve as a baseline for a forthcoming follow-up audit. The results of the follow-up audit, along with observable trends (either positive or negative) will be published in a forthcoming report.
Further, as we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team spent time meeting with, and listening to, the parties to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ. We also continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor’s team.
Finally, one other activity is worth special mention here. On Saturday, June 20, 2015, 5th District NOPD officer Daryle Holloway was shot and killed while transporting a prisoner to the Central Lockup facility. The prisoner, Travis Boys, had been arrested by officers on the earlier shift for shooting a handgun at a woman in the home they reportedly shared. While in the back of Officer Holloway’s car, Mr. Boys managed to maneuver his arms to the front of his body where he then produced a handgun he had kept concealed from the arresting officers, crawled through the vehicle’s partition, and shot Officer Holloway, killing him. Officer Holloway had three children, and, by all accounts, was a model New Orleans police officer.
The tragic killing of Officer Holloway put a lot of wheels into immediate and concurrent motion. The police department, supported by several local and federal agencies, had to notify Officer Holloway’s family, secure the crime scene, find Mr. Boys (who had escaped on foot), support Officer Holloway’s fellow officers, and ensure the public had timely and accurate information regarding the shooting, the manhunt, and the ultimate arrest.
The killing put wheels into motion for the Monitoring Team as well. From the first word of Officer Holloway’s killing, the Monitoring Team was on the ground in New Orleans working to ensure the understandably highly-charged emotions of Officer Holloway’s colleagues did not result in any inappropriate actions being taken against citizens (or

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 15 of 135
Page 15 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
against Mr. Boys once he was found). We are pleased to report that NOPD comported itself admirably.
 First, NOPD, led by FIT, quickly secured and maintained the crime scene.
 Second, NOPD worked closely with local, regional, and federal authorities to initiate a thorough and well thought-out manhunt for Mr. Boys.
 Third, PIB immediately reviewed (and re-reviewed, frame-by-frame) the video recordings of not only the shooting, but the events leading up to the shooting, and stayed on full alert throughout the manhunt to ensure NOPD followed the law.
 Fourth, the NOPD Office of Assistance & Support quickly engaged a group of expert psychologists, peer counselors, and clergy to provide support and counseling to the officers of the 5th district.
The Monitoring Team personally observed each of the foregoing steps – including accompanying officers involved in the manhunt – and was extremely impressed by the speed and thoughtfulness of NOPD’s actions. During the “C Shift” roll call the night Officer Holloway was shot, the Commander of the 5th District gave his officers a speech about the tragedy and what was to come. Among other things, Commander Goodly emphasized that the killing was committed by one man, not a city, a community, or a neighborhood. He cautioned his officers to stay vigilant and fight against the natural tendency to blame others for the actions of one. He stressed the importance of protecting the community’s rights and the rights of Mr. Boys once he was captured and arrested. Commander Goodly issued these warnings professionally, sincerely, and in a manner that got his officers’ attention. It was an impressive message on a very sad and emotionally-charged day.
The Monitoring Team also was highly impressed by the professionalism of the NOPD upon the arrest of Mr. Boys, which occurred around 8 am the next morning. Immediately following the radio call from the arresting officer that he had Mr. Boys in custody, a district lieutenant got on the radio and did four things. First, he confirmed that neither Mr. Boys nor the officer had been injured during the arrest. (Neither had.) Second, he reminded all officers that their Body Worn Cameras should be on and remain on throughout the arrest and transportation of Mr. Boys. Third, he ordered a ranking officer (a sergeant or lieutenant) to accompany the arresting officer during transport. And fourth, he ordered that Mr. Boys be transported and placed in the custody of PIB FIT immediately. He followed these directions with a warning along the following lines: “The entire City’s eyes are on us. Everything will be done by the book.” And from the Monitoring Team’s vantage point, it was.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 16 of 135
Page 16 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
From the moment of Mr. Boys’ arrest and transport to FIT, NOPD rank, the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the Independent Police Monitor, and the PIB detectives leading the investigation never left his side – and neither did the Monitoring Team. We observed his treatment from his arrest, through his medical assessment by EMS, his interrogation at FIT, a hospital visit (ordered by FIT out of an abundance of caution), and his ultimate hand-off to the Orleans Parish Sherriff. Throughout this time, NOPD acted honorably, professionally, and in full compliance with the Consent Decree.
Subsequent to the shooting and arrest of Mr. Boys, the Monitoring Team re-watched the videos leading up to Mr. Boys’ arrest. Based upon those videos, we provided NOPD with a list of questions and training recommendations. To its credit, NOPD already had initiated some of these recommendations on its own. For example, the Department promptly re-trained all officers in all districts on proper handcuffing procedures. The Monitoring Team currently is working with the Compliance Bureau to ensure our other questions are answered and other necessary corrective actions are promptly put into place.
Corrective actions, of course, cannot bring Officer Holloway back or provide a father to his three children. NOPD’s willingness to study the events that led to the shooting with an honest and critical eye, and to learn from, rather than hide from, those tough lessons, though, undoubtedly will help reduce the risk of a similar tragedy in the future.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 17 of 135
Page 17 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. POLICIES
As noted above, NOPD’s policy drafting and vetting process has improved greatly since the outset of the Consent Decree, and, as a result, its policies are much improved. Several policies already have been approved by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team, and several more have been submitted and are awaiting approval. While drafting, vetting, and revising policies is an inherently slow process, NOPD clearly has made significant progress in this area.
Last quarter, the Monitoring Team reported on the approval of the following policies:
 Use of Force  Use of Force Reporting and Investigation  Misconduct Complaints/Disciplinary Investigations  Domestic Violence  Employee Conduct: Minor Violations/Infraction
More recently, seven additional policies have been added to the list:
 Search & Seizure  Investigative (Terry) Stops  Search Warrants  Handcuffing and Restraints  Prisoner Transport  Canines  FIT/Officer Involved Shootings
NOPD, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team continue to work well together, and are moving forward with several critical policies. Among the policies currently being worked on are: Academy, Immigration Status, Conducted Electrical Weapons, Adjudication of Misconduct, Disciplinary Matrix/Penalty Schedule, Misconduct Complaint Investigator Responsibilities, and Sexual Assault. Approval of most, if not all, of these policies likely will occur in the current quarter.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 18 of 135
Page 18 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VIII. USE OF FORCE REVIEW
A. Introduction
As discussed in earlier monitoring reports, the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement force policies, training, and review procedures that ensure force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force is identified and responded to appropriately. (CD III) In order to manage use of force by its officers and to enable identification of misconduct or patterns with respect to force, four elements are necessary.
 First policies and procedures for reporting use of force must be implemented.
 Second, members of the Department must receive competent training on the policy requirements.
 Third, the Department must ensure it knows the full extent of force used by its officers.
 Fourth, the Department has to identify policy violations and abuses of force, and take timely and appropriate corrective action when necessary.
This Quarterly Report provides an assessment of compliance with aspects of those requirements covering the period October, 2014 through February, 2015. In addition to assessing practices in place at the time of our reviews, the Monitoring Team will be using these data as a baseline from which to measure improvement in the ensuing months.2
Before getting into the details of our findings, however, we should note much effort has been undertaken by the NOPD since February 2015 on the issues covered by this Report. Indeed, since NOPD’s appointment of a new FIT commanding officer in July 2015, the Monitoring Team has noted material progress. For example, since July, FIT has created guides for the criminal and administrative investigators that incorporate the essential investigative steps required by the Consent Decree. (CD 97c) The Monitoring Team commends FIT for this recent progress.

2

To help NOPD’s PIB move into full compliance with the Consent Decree, on July 8, 2015, Professor

(and member of the Monitoring Team) Geoffrey Alpert and Deputy Monitor Dennis Nowicki

presented a training class to members of the Use of Force Review Board, the Training Academy and

PIB’s Force Investigations Team. The training focused on managing use of force: reporting,

investigating and review of use of force by police officers. The training was requested by the Public

Integrity Bureau.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 19 of 135
Page 19 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to “develop and implement policy and procedure manuals for, at a minimum, the following functions: d) Use of Force Reporting, Investigation, and Review, including both Supervisory and FIT investigations.” (CD 18) Throughout 2014, the Department functioned under a policy it issued in mid-2013 that was not approved by the Department of Justice or the Monitoring Team, as required by the Consent Decree. (CD 21) On March 27, 2015, however, the Department’s policies on Use of Force, Reporting Use of Force, and Use of Force Review Board were approved.
Though the officers were guided by a policy not yet approved by the Monitoring Team and DOJ, the Monitoring Team nonetheless assessed compliance with the Department’s then-current policy and with the requirements of the Consent Decree, recognizing, in the absence of an approved policy, our assessment would find certain practices inconsistent with Consent Decree requirements3. Because use of force reporting, investigation, and several other Consent Decree requirements were incorporated in the 2014 policies, however, our assessments from that period are nonetheless instructive.
The Monitoring Team developed a process to ensure our use of force reviews are comprehensive and consistent, and over several months we gathered data to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Department’s use of force practices. The data we gathered not only provide important insight into the Department’s practices, but they also provide important benchmarks to facilitate the “outcome assessment” required by the Consent Decree, and, we hope, to measure improvements over time.
The Monitoring Team’s use of force review process captures up to 86 data elements for each use of force event, depending on the number of officers using force or witnessing the use of force.4 Our process includes an assessment of the requirements of the Consent Decree, the quality of the investigation into the use of force and whether the force was justified based on the totality of the circumstances. Once the approved policies are issued by the Department and officers are trained, our now well-tested methodology will enable the Monitoring Team to continue giving timely feedback on individual use of force events and investigations so that, where appropriate, NOPD can take corrective action. It also will enable the Department and the public to see the tangible benefits derived from improvements in the policy, training, and supervision mandated by the Consent Decree.

3

For a discussion of the progress of policy development overall see the March 2015 Monitoring

Team’s Quarterly Report.

4

The range of possible data elements is determined by the number of officers involved in or

witnessing the use of force. For each involved or witness officer our review captures the officer’s

name, rank, whether a force statement was submitted, whether the officer used force or witnessed

the use of force and whether the officer activated her/his body worn camera during the event

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 20 of 135
Page 20 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Since our last report of our review of use of force investigation, the Monitoring Team gained access to NOPD’s Electronic Police Reporting (“EPR”) system, the Body Worn Camera (“BWC”) video records, and Conducted Electrical Weapons (“CEWs,” more commonly known as “Tasers”®) videos. These records have enabled us to complete more comprehensive reviews of each use of force event, identify deficiencies in the investigations by supervisors, and assess the sufficiency of the various reports required from officers.
Fundamentally, any use of force analysis is only as good as the available data. Information that did not make it into the reports, obviously, cannot be considered by the Monitoring Team. Going forward, with the implementation of an approved policy, and with ready access to more complete data including CEW, BWC, and in-car camera video footage, we anticipate being even better able to assess the reasonableness of specific use of force events in accordance with Constitutional standards and the requirements of the Consent Decree.
B. Reporting Use of Force
1. Requirements
To promote effective reporting, the Consent Decree requires the NOPD to “develop and implement a uniform reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting Policy, using a uniform supervisor Use of Force Report, which will include individual officer Force Statements.” (CD 76) For reporting and investigative assignment purposes, NOPD uses of force are divided into four levels:
 Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury.
 Level 2 uses of force include use of an CEW (including where a CEW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns).
 Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 21 of 135
Page 21 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by [the Consent Decree], and shall be investigated by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team.5
Each officer who uses a Level 1 force is required to prepare a force statement that completely and accurately describes the force used and includes: (1) a detailed account of the incident from the officer’s perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a description of every type of force used. (CD 78) Supervisors also may require witness officers to prepare a force statement at their discretion, and these statements must be submitted by the end of the work day. The force statement must be be reviewed by a supervisor who was neither involved6 nor a witness to the incident. (CD 83)7
Similarly, each officer who uses or witnesses a Level 2 or Level 3 use of force is required to prepare a force statement. In such events, a non-involved supervisor is required to respond to the scene, conduct a thorough investigation into the use of force, and document her/his investigation in a Use of Force Report8 within 72 hours. (CD 86, 87)
The Consent Decree requires supervisors’ use of force reports, including officers’ force statements, be maintained centrally by PIB. (CD 81) NOPD has assigned that responsibility to PIB’s FIT unit. Until recently, the task of receiving, reviewing, and maintaining the associated files was assigned to a FIT sergeant who also was tasked with conducting the administrative investigations of serious use of force events, overseeing the data entry into IAPro (PIB investigations tracking and management system), managing the

5

“Serious use of force” means: (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPD officer; (2) all critical firearm

discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical

injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer

resulting in a loss of consciousness; (6) all canine bites; (7) more than two applications of an ECW on

an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and

whether the applications are by the same or different officers, or ECW application for longer than 15

seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or

similar use of force against a handcuffed subject.

6

For reporting purposes NOPD defines an “involved officer” as an officer who uses force. Officers who

observe the use of force are considered “witness officers.”

7

Additionally, “Officers’ Force Statements shall completely and accurately describe the force used or

observed. The use of force reporting policy shall explicitly prohibit the use of conclusory statements

without supporting detail, including “boilerplate” or “pat” language (e.g., “furtive movement” or

“fighting stance”) in all statements and reports documenting use of force. Officers shall be subject to

disciplinary action for material omissions or inaccuracies in their Force Statements.” (CD 79)

8

The Consent Decree defines a “Use of Force Report” as a written report documenting a supervisor’s

investigation of a use of force as required by this Agreement.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 22 of 135
Page 22 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Department’s Professional Performance Enhancement Program, including teaching a block of instruction included in that program, and reviewing officers’ force statements and field investigators use of force reports. The scope and breath of his assigned duties left little time for quality control over use of force investigations completed by field supervisors. Consequently, as our earlier reports revealed, quality control of use of force investigation was lacking.
Whenever an officer uses a reportable level of force, the officer must notify a supervisor. Once notified, the supervisor must contact FIT. Upon notification, FIT assigns a unique force tracking number (“FTN”) and records sufficient information about the event to enable tracking of the completion of the required reports. The name of the involved and witness officers, the incident report number, the name of the subject the force was used against, and the type and level of force used are recorded on the force log. As shown in Figure 1 below, there were a total of 413 use of force events recorded by FIT in 2014.
Figure 1. Use of Force Events by Unit of Assignment of Involved Officer(s)

2014 USE OF FORCE EVENTS BY DISTRICT

SOD, 41

Other, 22

1st District, 37 2nd District, 25
3rd District, 29

8th District, 87

4th District, 32

7th District, 44

5th District , 46 6th District, 50

2. Officers Compliance with Reporting Requirements
To verify that officers are complying with the mandated reporting requirements, the Monitoring Team obtained from NOPD a database of all 2014 police reports wherein an arrestee was charged with battery of a police officer, assault of a police officer, or resisting

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 23 of 135
Page 23 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
arrest. Such events are likely also to involve the use of force to overcome the resistance or to defend against the assault or battery. The database we received identified 657 reports of events occurring in 2014 wherein an offender was charged with one of those offenses.9
We matched the resulting item numbers to item numbers found in the listing of 413 use of force events logged on the FIT force log. Our comparison found that, of the 657 reports, 170 were associated with a use of force event found on the FIT force log.
Recognizing that a charge of resisting arrest or assault on a police officer can result from an event in which no force was used by the arresting officer, the Monitoring Team considered reviewing each report to determine if, in fact, force was used. Such a review is labor intensive and time consuming. Consequently, we decided to review only those cases occurring in the last quarter of 2014, in the months of October, November, and December. One hundred and forty-one cases occurred in those three months. We obtained and read copies of all 141 incident reports.
In many cases, the charge of resisting arrest was associated with behavior such as fleeing from the officer or providing false identification. There were also several cases in which the victim of the resisting or assault was a member of another law enforcement agency, that is, the Louisiana State Patrol or the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office. Unless there also was evidence of physical force used against or by an NOPD officer, we did not expect to find a force statement and use of force report associated with the event.
After removing all such events from the list of item reports, we found that 35 of the 141 cases contain evidence that reportable force was used by a member of the New Orleans Police Department. We alerted NOPD PIB personnel of all 35 cases and asked them to provide all associated force statements and use of force reports. The Department was able to locate and provide Force Statements and Use of Force Reports on only 10 of the identified cases. They were logged under a different item number than the item number assigned to the report documenting the arrest.10 In three other cases, the subject was arrested by another law enforcement agency.

9

It is important to note the data underlying this analysis is from 2014. As we currently are in the third

quarter of 2015, these data may not reflect NOPD’s current state of compliance. The data, however,

will serve as a critical benchmark from which we will measure progress as NOPD moves forward.

10

The practice of a single event being assigned multiple control numbers (item numbers) has been

noted in the past and brought to the attention of NOPD. The Department acknowledges the problem

and is working on remediating it. This practice has a significant adverse impact on supervisors’

ability to review the work of their subordinates, including reviewing BWC videos associated with use

of force events.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 24 of 135
Page 24 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Department conducted its own review of the facts associated with those 35 cases and had concluded that no force was used in 8 of the 25 cases for which we or they were unable to locate associated use of force reports. Those findings are different from ours and are a consequence of the historically poor reporting practices of some NOPD officers and of inadequate supervisory review by their sergeants. Those 8 reports were very short on detail, which should have been caught and remediated at the time by the approving sergeant.11
The Department had initiated disciplinary investigations in 14 of the 17 remaining cases, alleging failure to comply with the use of force reporting requirements. Three of those cases occurred in the 1st District, 2 in the 4th District, 2 in the 5th District, 1 in the 7th District, and 5 in the 8th District. There were 26 officer and 6 sergeants identified in those 14 cases. Three officers and 2 sergeants were involved in 2 un-reported use of force events. As of June 1, 2015, none of the investigations had been completed by PIB – a troubling finding of our audit.
As noted above, these data are somewhat outdated, but should nonetheless be concerning to the NOPD.12 The Monitoring Team currently is in the process of conducting a similar use of force analysis using 2015 data for which the 2014 findings will serve as an important benchmark.
3. Supervisor’s Investigation of Reported Use of Force
We selected 178 of the 413 reported use of force events occurring in 2014 to review. We reviewed the investigating supervisor’s Use of Force Report, all officer Force Statements in the file, and the Department’s response to the use of force. As pointed out above, since our fourth quarter 2014 Quarterly Report, we gained access to NOPD’s Electronic Police Reporting system, the Body Worn Camera video records, and CEW videos. These records enabled us to complete more comprehensive reviews of each use of force event and to identify deficiencies in the investigation by the supervisor and the submission of reports required from the officers. For each review, we captured up to 96 data elements

11

The Monitoring Team’s Special Report on NOPD Supervision, published early this year, reveals that

the Department still has work to do to bring its supervisory functions into compliance with the

Consent Decree. More recently, although improvements in some areas have been noted, the

Monitoring Team continues to find supervisory shortcomings in many of the Districts during our

monthly district-by-district audits.

12

Of course, the data examined by the Monitoring Team reflected reported uses of force. Obviously,

unreported uses of force need to be assessed by other means. The Monitoring Team looks for and

evaluates unreported uses of force by reviewing BWC video recordings and by reviewing certain

types of charges that often are associated with a use of force, such as a resisting arrest charge.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 25 of 135
Page 25 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

to assist us in assessing the completeness and sufficiency of the investigation, and the appropriateness of the finding.

As a reminder, the Consent Decree requires all officers using a Level 1 through 4 use of force, and officers witnessing a Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 use of force, to write a Force Statement before the end of shift. As in our earlier review, not all officers complied with the requirement that they submit a force statement when they use or witness a use of force. Table 1 presents the number of incidents where we found force statements from all involved and identified witness officers. Of the 178 Use of Force files we reviewed, we identified 40 that did not include the required Force Statements from all involved and witness officers.

Table 1.

Frequency of incidents where all involved & witness officers

submitted required force statements

Force statement submitted by all officers

N

%

Yes

138

77.5%

No

40

22.5%

Total

178

As reflected above, a force statement was submitted by all involved and witness officers in 67.4% of these incidents. Thus, in 32.6% of incidents we reviewed in late 2014, a force statement was not submitted by all involved and witness officers.

In most use of force events, more than one officer participated either as an involved officer or a witness. In the 178 cases we reviewed, force was used by 297 officers with 144 officers witnessing the event. Table 2 shows the percent of involved or witness officers who submitted the required force statement. A force statement was found for a majority of involved officers (90.6%). However, force statements were found for 76.1% of witness officers, where required. In other words, about four out of every ten witness officers failed to provide a force statement.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 26 of 135
Page 26 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Cross Tabulations of Force Statement Found and Involved and Witness Officers

Officer Involved
Officer Witness
Total

Force Statement Found

Yes

N

%

269

90.6%

86

76.1%

355

86.6%

No N 28

% 9.4%

Total N 297

27

23.9%

113

55

13.4%

410

As reflected above, a force statement was found for a vast majority of involved officers (90.6%). No force statement was found for 9.4% of involved officers. Force statements were found for 76.1% of witness officers in Level 2 – 4 use of force events. Accordingly, more than 2 out of every 10 witness officers did not provide a force statement (23.9%). Across all involved and witness officers, a force statement was found for 86.6% and was not found for 13.4%.
We found that officers who stated they did not observe the actual application of force were often not required by the investigating supervisor to submit a force statement. A best practice, however, is to have every officer present when the force was applied submit a report documenting what he or she saw or heard, even if he or she did not actually hear or see the force being used. The recently-approved Use of Force reporting policy contains that requirement.13
The NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with the use of force reporting requirements required by the Consent Decree, although we remind the reader these data are from late 2014 and early 2015, and NOPD has been working to enhance its record-keeping practices since that time.

13

The Use of Force Reporting policy was approved on March 27, 2015.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 27 of 135
Page 27 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

4. Quality of Force Statement & Use of Force Reports
In our review, we considered whether the investigation was sufficient, whether the supervisor reported that he or she responded to the scene of the incident, whether the subject was injured, whether the injuries were photographed, whether the incident was recorded (e.g., by a body worn camera, CEW or in-car camera), and more. We also captured the demographic information contained in the Use of Force Reports, including gender and race. We followed-up with NOPD on every Use of Force Report about which our initial review raised questions and/or concerns.14
We found the files too often were incomplete and, thus, they did not facilitate adequate oversight by the Force Investigation Team or by the Monitoring Team. Minimally, in addition to the supervisor’s Use of Force Report documenting his or her investigation, the file must contain Force Statements from all officers using force and from all officers witnessing the event (where requested or required). A complete Use of Force Report file also should include a copy of the offense report, copies of all associated video recordings, or pointers to where those files can be located – all evidence required to be collected and maintained by the Consent Decree. It also should contain copies of hospital treatment records and photos of injuries to officers and subjects. The reviewing supervisor’s use of force report should include a statement indicating his findings of whether, based on the available evidence, the force was justified and within department policy.
The Monitoring Team found few files complete. In fact, only one file included a video recording of a witness statement, even though forty-seven of the investigative reports indicated a recording was available. And none of the files included photos of the subjects of the use of force. As discussed below, it is a requirement of the Consent Decree (CD 86d) (and a common police practice) that photos be taken of all subjects who claim injury, and especially of subjects not injured to preserve evidence that they were not injured.
Encouragingly, we found improvement in the quality of the files for events occurring late in 2014 and early in 2015. We attribute the improvement to the addition of a second sergeant to the administrative section of FIT. The sergeant has been tasked with reviewing the completeness and sufficiency of the field supervisors’ investigations of Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force. Her efforts are producing the desired results. Her approach is to review the incident report prepared by the involved officers, the force

14

In July 2015, the Monitoring Team and the NOPD Compliance Bureau worked together to develop an

“immediate action form” that now is used by the Monitoring Team to facilitate and track critical

issues raised by the Monitoring Team and the responsive actions taken by NOPD. The Immediate

Action Forms are made available to the Court as well.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 28 of 135
Page 28 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
statements of the involved and witness officers, the field supervisor’s use of force report, and the associated body worn camera and/or CEW videos. She ensures the files are complete and that all required investigative steps have been completed. When she finds deficiencies, she returns the files back to the investigating supervisor with specific instructions on what further steps are required. A copy of her memo of deficiencies also is sent to the investigating supervisor’s commanding officer, thus enabling the commander to ensure a proper investigation is completed and to provide remedial attention to the supervisor when the supervisors continually has his investigations returned for further action.
a. Quality of Force Statements
An officer’s Force Statement must include: (1) a detailed account of the incident from the officer’s perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a description of every type of force used. (CD 78) Force statements are to completely and accurately describe the force used or observed. (CD 79) Only 138 of the 178 files contained force statements from every involved or witness15 officer identified in the incident report and/or the supervisor’s use of force report.
The Monitoring Team’s review, however, revealed that even when the officer did submit a force statement, it often was short on details. Deficiencies found included:
 Lack of sufficient descriptions of the presenting behavior that caused the subject to come to the attention of the officer.
 Failure to use accurate and specific descriptive language, instead using “boilerplate” or “pat” language in documenting investigatory stops, detentions, or searches.16

15

For our review, we considered an officer to be a ‘witness’ if she/he was present at the scene when a

Level 2 through 4 use of force occurred.

16

As noted above, paragraph 79 of the Consent Decree prohibits “the use of conclusory statements

without supporting detail, including ‘boilerplate’ or ‘pat’ language (e.g., “furtive movement” or

“fighting stance”) in all statements and reports documenting use of force.”

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 29 of 135 Page 29 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Lack of specific descriptions of the actions of the subject that constituted resistance, for example, using general descriptors such as:
o “was acting aggressively.”
o “he refused to comply.”
 Force statements from two or more involved officers that are nearly identically worded, thus appearing to not be in each officer’s own words.
 General terms used to describe the type of force the officer used, for example “used a takedown to control the subject”
 The description of the force used arises to a reporting level higher than the level it was classified as. For example, reviewing a forcible cuffing as compliant cuffing when the BWC shows two officers struggling to get the subject to submit to cuffing.
b. Quality of Use of Force Reports
An uninvolved supervisor must investigate all Level 2 & 3 use of force events and detail her/his findings in a Use of Force Report. As with Force Statements, we found many deficiencies in the quality of the reports completed by the supervisor. The deficiencies included:
 Failure to mention viewing BWC video.
 Though the supervisor did review the BWC, he fails to include in his narrative whether the video captured the resistance or the officer’s application of force.
 Where no BWC video was present because the officer was not assigned one because of the nature of his assignment, the report fails to explain.
 Failure to document that he viewed the Taser video.
 Failure to indicate that he checked availability of MVR video.
 Failure to indicate whether he responded to the scene.
 Internal inconsistencies in describing the actions of involved and witness officers, for example:

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 30 of 135 Page 30 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
o Stating that officer A cuffed the individual at one point in the narrative then that Officer B cuffed the subject later in the narrative.
o Identifying the nature of the injuries differently throughout the narrative.
o At one point stating that officers and subject fell to the ground and elsewhere stating that a takedown maneuver was applied.
 Little or no information on the injury and treatment the subject received.
 Photos of injuries not included in investigative file.
 If photos were not taken, no explanation as to why.
 Failure to report whether he attempted to interview the subject.
 If interviewed, no indication if interview was recorded, or if not, why not.
 No assessment of the event for tactical or training implications. No assessment of whether the officer attempted de-escalation or if such tactics were feasible.
 Failure to identify and assess missed opportunities for officers to use verbal persuasion or de-escalation techniques before resorting to use of force.
 Failure to reach a finding as to whether or not the use of force was justified and consistent with NOPD policy.
An encouraging finding is that the FIT sergeant tasked since late October with quality control review over the force investigations conducted by field supervisors is catching these shortcomings and returning the files back to the field supervisors for further action. Since early November through the end of 2014, she has returned more than 30 investigative files for further action. The Monitoring Team has reviewed several of her memos and found they contained very specific assessments of the investigation and guidance on what needs to be done to complete the investigation. Examples of her instructions are:
 Describe what the subject did that was considered resisting.
 If not injured by the officer, describe how the subject received his injuries.
 Were the BWC videos reviewed?

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 31 of 135
Page 31 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Ensure that an FIC was completed.
 Include a finding of whether or not the force was justified.
 Investigation requires: interviews of the subject and witnesses, photographs of injuries or the lack thereof, if de-escalation techniques were used, the reasonableness of the force used, and if the officer acting within NOPD policy, state and federal laws.
 There is no force statement from Officer “A”, there is no mention of photographs of subject, and most importantly his "aggressive manner" needs to be described in detail.
 When an officer is involved in a use of force and they have not been issued a body worn camera a canvass of surrounding businesses and residences could be beneficial.
This quality control effort is paying off. We reviewed 14 randomly selected Use of Force report files of investigations of incidents occurring in 2015 and found the investigations much improved. We found that all involved and witness officers submitted force statements, and the investigating sergeant reported conducting the investigation on the scene in 77% of Level 3 force events. There was only one Level 4 use of force in our sample, a case involving taking a cuffed subject to the ground and restraining him by placing a leg against his side to keep him against a wall after he kicked an officer in the chest from his prone position. It was first reported as a Level 3 force, but upon subsequent review by the FIT sergeant of a BWC video, re-classified as a Level 4. The video shows the subject on the ground with the officer’s leg against the side of his neck. It was subsequently investigated by FIT.
The lack of thoroughness of the supervisors’ investigations as documented in Use of Force Reports falls short of being useable for the critical intended purposes of managing use of force by its officers, identifying misuse of force and implementing corrective actions including discipline and training improvements. But, as noted above, we have seen some recent progress in filling the gaps identified through our use of force analysis.
C. Summary of Our Findings on Select Elements of Use of Force Events
1. How events resulting in force were initiated
A police encounter with a citizen can be initiated for several reasons. The officer can be assigned by police dispatch to a citizen’s call for the police. Or the officer could be driving down the street and be flagged by a citizen. An officer can observe a crime in progress and take action, even when off duty. Or officers may learn of an outstanding

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 32 of 135
Page 32 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
warrant or, themselves, obtain a warrant allowing them to search a home or to arrest someone.
Officers also are sometimes assigned to a high crime area and instructed to engage in “proactive patrol,” stopping people engaging in suspicious activity. Detectives, when following up on a past crime, often approach individuals known to have committed similar crimes with similar methods. Depending on the attendant facts, officer actions in such encounters can range from conducting a voluntary interview of a citizen, wherein the citizen can refuse to talk to the officer and walk away, to temporarily detaining the citizen while the officer checks him out, or to arresting the citizen when probable cause exists.
For the officer to detain the citizen, he must, minimally, have reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the commission of a crime. The officer must be able to articulate the facts that constituted reasonable suspicion and include them in his report.
We looked at how the encounter was initiated in 178 cases from 2014, and, based upon the information documented in the reports, assessed whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain or arrest the subject. In 6 of the cases, we found no reasonable suspicion for the officer to stop the subject. Significantly, because the officer’s report contained few facts, we were unable to determine with certainty that reasonable suspicion existed in 65 cases. Each of these cases was referred back to the NOPD for further action.
The Consent Decree addresses the importance of managing investigative stops, requiring the Department to have in place a robust stop, search, and detention data collection and review system. Officers must capture an array of information for every stop, detention, search, or seizures they undertake and submit the information before the end of shift so that the officer’s supervisor can review it. Absent exceptional circumstances, field supervisors are obligated to review investigatory reports within 12 hours of receiving them. If the review identifies any violations or deficiencies the supervisor is further obligated to ensure corrective action is initiated, either through counseling and/or referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. (CD 150 & 151)17

17

Ensuring field contacts are documented, as required by the Consent Decree, is beyond the scope of

this review, but is being reviewed by the Monitoring Team and will be addressed in a forthcoming

report. Tracking court outcomes, for all arrests and certainly for arrests involving force, is a best

practice for police departments. Such a practice enables the Department to evaluate officer behavior

and identify officers who repeatedly stop people without legal justification. Our review did not

include comparing Force Statements with reports found in the Field Interview database or following

a case forward to learn the disposition in the courts.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 33 of 135
Page 33 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3 presents the frequencies for how each encounter was initiated by whether there was reasonable suspicion. Forty-one percent (74) of the encounters started out as a call for service. In 63% (47) of those, the officer’s Force Statement provided sufficient information to establish reasonable suspicion. Overall, however, incident reports (EPRs), arrest reports, or force statements in 65 (33.8%) of the 178 cases contained insufficient documentation to allow us to make a determination that reasonable suspicion was presented.

Table 3.

Cross-tabulation of how encounter was initiated by whether the

officer had reasonable suspicion

How was encounter initiated?
Dispatched Flagged by citizen
On view Proactive patrol Follow-up investigation Warrant service
Other Off duty
Total

Reasonable suspicion

Yes

No

Insufficiently Documented

N/A

47 0

25

2

9

0

5

0

13 1

14

1

24 4

7

0

5

0

5

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

4

0

2

1

5

1

102 6

65

5

Total
74 14 29 35 10 3 4 9
178

The following summary bullet points highlight the Monitoring Team’s findings as reflected in the forgoing table:
 Most encounters were initiated by the officer being dispatched (41.6%). Of these incidents, 63.5% (N = 47) involved reasonable suspicion whereas reasonable suspicion was not sufficiently documented in 33.8% of these incidents.
 Fourteen encounters were initiated by being flagged down by a citizen and it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed in 9 of the incidents (64.3%). In the remaining 5 there was insufficient information in the reports to reach a conclusion.
 With respect to “on view” initiated incidents (N = 29), 44.8% had reasonable suspicion sufficiently documented and in 48.3% of the events reasonable

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 34 of 135
Page 34 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
suspicion was not sufficiently documented in the reports. One “on view” initiated incident did not have reasonable suspicion (3.4%).
 35 encounters were initiated on proactive patrol (19.7% of all incidents). Reasonable suspicion existed in 68.6% of these incidents. However, reasonable suspicion was not documented in 11.4% of the proactive patrol initiated use of force encounters.
 Ten incidents occurred as a result of a follow-up investigation and half involved reasonable suspicion (not determined in the other half of such incidents).
 Three incidents were initiated during a warrant service. Two of these cases had reasonable suspicion and one was classified as N/A.
 Nine use of force encounters occurred while the officer was off duty (5.1% of all incidents). Of these incidents, it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed in two, no reasonable suspicion in one, and one was coded as N/A. Reasonable suspicion has not been determined in five of these incidents.
 With respect to the unit of assignment and the six incidents that did not have reasonable suspicion, Districts 1 and 8 each had one such incident initiated by proactive patrol. Two incidents in the ISB/SGU unit were initiated by proactive patrol and did not have reasonable suspicion. District 5 had one incident initiated by an off-duty officer that did not involve reasonable suspicion. K9 had one incident that was determined not to have reasonable suspicion that was initiated by “on view.”
 None of the documents found in the use of force investigation files, that is, the incident report (EPR), the Force Statement, or the Use of Force Report included sufficient documentation in 65 cases to allow us to determine if the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the subject. Generally that means that the report was totally void of any explanation of why the officer decided to stop the individual.
2. Outcomes of application of force – Injuries to officer
Most uses of force did not involve injury to the officer. In fact, in 145 of the 178 cases, the reporting officer reported receiving no injury from the use of force.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 35 of 135
Page 35 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Frequency and type of officer injuries

Type of injury

N

No injury

145

Fatal

0

Gunshot

1

Hospitalized/non-gunshot

1

Treated and released/broken bone

1

Treated and released

28

Treated by EMT

1

Declined treatment

1

Total

178

%
81.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 15.7% 0.6% 0.6%

The data reflected above reveal that at least one officer was injured in 18.5% of these incidents (N =33). Thus, in 81.5% of incidents no officers were injured. Further, within the incidents where an officer was injured, 84.8% involved the officer being treated and released (N = 28; 15.7% of the total number of incidents).
3. Outcomes of application of force – Injuries to subject
Our review of the late 2014 data revealed supervisors routinely fail to document the extent of injury to the subject of the force, and to take photographs of the injuries. As reflected in Table 5 below, less than half of the arrestees that fell within our review sample were injured in the course of the arrest. The Consent Decree provides that during the investigation of a use of force (other than a Level 1 use of force) photographs of the subject of the force should be taken. (CD 86) NOPD procedures similarly require that the investigating supervisor shall “ensure that all evidence to establish material facts related to the use of force, including audio and video records, photographs, and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected.” The files we reviewed, however, show photographs were infrequently taken following Use of Force events. As reflected in Table 5 photographs of the subject of the force were taken in only 13 of the investigations, including 3 of arrestees who were not injured.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 36 of 135
Page 36 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Cross-tabulation of the number of arrestees injured by whether photos were taken of the injury

Arrestee injured

Yes

No

Not by PO Unknown

N/A

Total

Photos taken of injury
Yes No Unknown N/A

N % N %N%N % N %

N

10 12.5% 3 3.4% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14 66 82.5% 41 46.1% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 109 2 2.5% 2 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 2 2.5% 43 48.3% 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 2 100.0% 51

Total

80 44.9% 89 50.0% 3 1.7% 4 2.2% 2 1.1% 178

The foregoing data show that a total of 80 arrestees were injured during these use of force incidents. Of these incidents, only 10 indicated that photos were taken of the injured arrestee (12.5%). No photos were taken in 82.5% of incidents involving an injured arrestee. Two injured shown as N/A were force used against an animal, one a snake and the other a dog.
4. Supervisor Responds to the Scene
The Consent Decree requires a supervisor to respond to the scene of every Level 2, 3, and 4 use of force. Response to the scene of a Level 1 use of force is not required. (CD 84) The recently approved NOPD policy on reporting use of force contains similar requirements with the exception that it encourages the supervisor to respond to Level 1 events, stating “the supervisor shall, if possible, respond to the scene of the event to conduct an on-scene review.”
As Figure 2 shows, and as one would expect, the data reveal a correlation between the level of force used and a supervisor’s appearance on the scene. As the force level decreases, a supervisor was less likely to have made an appearance. Indeed, in the context of a Level 2 use of force, a supervisor arrived on the scene in only slightly more than half of the cases. In Level 3 events, the on scene presence exceeded 70%. In the more serious use

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 37 of 135
Page 37 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

of force events, Level 4 force, which include force resulting in serious physical injury or requiring hospitalization, neck holds, force resulting in a loss of consciousness, canine bites, more than two applications of an CEW on an individual during a single interaction or CEW application for longer than 15 seconds, and any strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject, the supervisor responded to the scene nearly 80% of the time. And in those Level 4 cases where the field supervisor was not on the scene, they either involved force against an animal (shot a snake) or the force level was elevated after a preliminary investigation by the supervisor. In all use of force events that were clearly identified as a Level 4 reporting category from the outset, a first line supervisor responded to the scene and notified FIT.
Figure 2. Supervisor Responded to Scene

Supervisor Responded to Scene

40 30 20 10
0 Level 1

On Scene Not On Scene

Level 2

Level 3

FORCE REPORTING LEVEL

Level 4

ON SCENE

The Use of Force Reports we reviewed suggest NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
5. Supervisor Interviews of Subjects of Uses of Force
The Consent Decree requires for all Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force the investigating supervisor must, among other things, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject of his/her rights, and ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider.” (CD 86)
We found that the investigating sergeant interviewed or attempted to interview the subject of the force 56.2% of the time. In 34.8% of the time the sergeant reports no interview or attempt to interview the subject, though she/he was available to be interviewed. These data suggest NOPD cannot yet demonstrate compliance with this element of the Consent Decree.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 38 of 135
Page 38 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
6. Supervisor’s Findings
The supervisor must make a preliminary determination of the appropriateness of the use of force, including whether the force was reasonable and within policy. (CD 87) Of the 178 Reports we reviewed, 83% clearly indicated the supervisor reached a conclusion regarding the reasonableness of the Use of Force.
Use of force was justified according to NOPD in 80.9% (N =144) of incidents. Of these cases, the OCDM determined that 90.3% (N =130) were reasonable. Thus, 8.3% of cases that NOPD concluded were justified were determined by the OCDM to be unreasonable (N =12) (1.4% of these cases the files were significantly incomplete, such that OCDM was unable to determine reasonableness).
In three cases NOPD determine that force was not justified (OCDM agreed with each finding). NOPD’s findings were unknown in 31 (17.4%) incidents. However, within these cases the OCDM determined that 26 (83.9%) were reasonable and 4 (12.9%) were unreasonable.
Finally, the OCDM determined that a majority of force incidents were reasonable (87.6%; N =156) while 10.7% of incidents were classified as unreasonable (N =19).
The cases of disagreement were discussed with NOPD for further action.
NOPD has not yet demonstrated compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
D. Critical Firearms Discharges
The preceding analysis deals with lower-level force, including Level 2 and Level 3 uses of force. In such events the involved officer’s chain of command conducts the investigation and review. The officer’s sergeant, in addition to screening a force incident and classifying the incident, serves as the primary investigator. For more serious force, including all critical firearms discharges, the Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) responds to the scene and conducts the investigation.
A critical firearm discharge is any discharge of a firearm by an NOPD officer, including discharges when no person or animal is struck. It does not include range and training firings, destruction of animals, and off-duty hunting discharges where no person is struck. Each critical firearms discharge is subjected to two levels of investigation, one criminal and the other administrative. All critical firearms discharges are investigated by FIT. Included in the 178 use of force events reviewed are 11 critical firearms discharges.
Two of the 11 critical firearms discharges resulted in fatalities. In another case the subject received a non-fatal graze wound to the head. In five of the shootings, no one was

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 39 of 135
Page 39 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

hit. Two of the other cases involved animals. In one of those an officer shot a snake he found in his back yard, in the other an off-duty officer shot a dog he claimed was attacking his family. In the last case, an officer negligently discharged a found rifle he was unloading before submitting it to the NOPD property clerk. The below table represents data on the eight deadly force events involving human subjects.

Table 6.

Use of Deadly Force

Fatal Non-Fatal Not Hit Total

Subject Armed 2 0 3 5

Subject Not Armed 0 1 2 3

Total 2 1 5 8

One of the fatal cases is the widely publicized ambush of an officer working a detail at a fast food restaurant. Though he was ambushed and seriously injured, he returned fire at his assailants, one of whom later died of his injuries. The other involved an armed subject who pointed a firearm at a pursuing officer. Weapons were recovered in both cases. Both investigations were presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review. No criminal violations were lodged against the involved officers. Additionally, the Department’s Administrative investigation found no violations of Department rules or regulations. The Monitoring Team concurs with the finding in both cases.
In the case in which an unarmed subject received non-life threatening injuries, the case was not presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review. The FIT criminal investigation concluded that “based on the evidence collected and witness officer’s statement” the subject “grabbed [the officer’s] handgun during the struggle. . . .” The criminal investigator concluded that she “did not find probable cause to charge” the officer with a criminal offense. Though the investigative file reports that the matter was presented to the District Attorney’s Office for screening for charges against the arrestee, it makes no mention of seeking an opinion from the District Attorney’s Office on the conduct of the officer.
The administrative investigation found no fault by the officer for the discharge, though the officer was investigated for failure to wear her body worn camera. The incident occurred on August 11, 2014; the administrative investigation was completed on April 22, 2015. The administrative investigation concluded that: “There is no evidence to suggest that [the officer’s] use of deadly force was unreasonable or violated any departmental policies or procedures”. OCDM found the administrative investigation deficient in several

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 40 of 135
Page 40 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ways. It did not addresses the poor tactics used by the officer that placed her into a situation where she ended up struggling with the subject, causing her weapon to discharge and graze the subject’s head. She approached the subject with her pistol in one hand and her cuffs in the other. We discuss the poor quality of the administrative investigations later in this report.18
E. Quality of FIT Investigations
FIT is divided into two units, FIT Criminal and FIT Administrative. Both FIT Criminal and FIT Administrative respond to the scene of a critical firearms discharge and conduct independent but parallel investigations, with FIT Criminal initially taking the lead. The following sections provide our findings on the general quality of the investigations by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team.
1. Criminal Investigation
The quality and rigor of the investigations by FIT Criminal were found to be objective, thorough, and fastidious. The investigations were like any homicide investigation conducted by a competent, experienced homicide investigator. Each investigation began with a timely response to the scene of the event, securing the scene, isolating the involved officers and any witness identified at the outset, and collecting the evidence. If not already obtained before the FIT investigator arrives, the investigator obtained a public safety statement from the involved officers. The search for physical evidence was thorough. Witness canvasses were done, not only the day of the incident but in some cases a second canvass was done a day or more later to locate people who may have been reluctant to answer their door the day of the incident.
Group interviews were avoided. Interviews with officer and citizen witnesses were recorded, as were interviews of the officer who fired his/her weapon. The investigators avoided asking leading questions. Leads developed through interviews were followed up.
Body worn camera, conductive energy weapon, and mobile video recording videos were preserved and reviewed by the investigators. Canvasses for business or residential cameras that may have captured the incident are routine, and any videos located were preserved, reviewed and considered in the investigative summary.

18

Since the Monitoring Team brought these concerns to the attention of the NOPD, we are pleased to

report that members of the Department’s Force Investigations Team and Compliance Bureau have

been working closely and constructively with the Monitoring Team to develop investigation guides

and checklists to ensure these gaps are remedied in future investigations.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 41 of 135
Page 41 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In cases when the subject was shot, the weapon was secured, inspected for the number of rounds and subjected to firearms examination and ballistics testing. The officer’s weapons training records were checked. Hospital records and, in fatal cases, autopsy reports were collected and reviewed. The shooting scene was thoroughly photographed and searched with the aim of recovering all ballistic evidence, including shell casings and bullets.
The investigators reviewed all evidence, including crime scene, physical, ballistic and forensic evidence, and witness statements in reaching a conclusion. When there are conflicts between physical evidence and statements, or between the statements of one witness with another, the investigative summary addressed and resolved them.
The thoroughness of the investigations was shown in one case where an officer alleged the subject was armed with a pistol and pointed it at him. The search conducted in the immediate aftermath failed to locate any weapon, thus leaving some doubt of the officer’s report. The location of the event was a large field overgrown with weeds. The FIT investigator subsequently obtained the assistance of an ATF canine team trained to locate weapons and conducted a search of the field where the subject was last observed. The search recovered a pistol fitting the description of the weapon the officer said he observed.
2. Administrative Investigations
Our review found that administrative investigation commenced at the same time as the criminal investigation, and, generally proceeded on a parallel track to a point. The lead FIT administrative investigator responded to the scene of the shooting and actively assisted in the investigations. Generally, the lead FIT criminal investigator controlled the scene and gave assignments to other FIT investigators, including the lead FIT administrative investigator. In different incidents and at different times, the FIT administrative investigator, for example, assisted in preserving the incident scene and gathering evidence, identifying involved and witness officers, conducting canvasses for witnesses, canvassing for security system videos, and interviewing the injured or otherwise involved offenders. Generally, the administrative investigator was fully involved in the investigation from the outset. At the early stages of the investigation, however, the FIT administrative investigator refrained from interviewing the officer who used force, leaving that task to the FIT Criminal Investigator.
Unlike our findings in criminal investigations, the reports of the Administrative investigation in these 11 Critical Firearms Discharges, disappointingly, were deficient in several ways. Though the administrative investigator was fully engaged at the outset of each investigation and was instrumental in gathering evidence used in reaching a conclusion in both the criminal and administrative review of the conduct of the involved officers, the level of assessment of the actions of the involved officers in relation to NOPD

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 42 of 135
Page 42 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

policy, training and approved tactics, as documented in the administrative investigators report, were almost nonexistent.

Throughout 2014, we had conversations with FIT’s commanding officer about the status of the administrative investigations, making it clear that we needed access to the administrative investigation file as well. We were informed that each administrative investigation was being attended to and further assured we would be given the file for review once the administrative investigation and investigative summary reports were completed. Though we had expectations that the administrative investigation summaries would be available for review in a timely manner, we learned early in 2015 that only 3 were available.

When we finally demanded copies of the 8 other administrative investigation files, in whatever degree of completion they were in, we were informed that they were maintained by the FIT commanding officer, who had since left the department. FIT staff were unable to locate any administrative investigation reports for the 8 cases. We finally received the investigations, all dated between April 22-30, 2015.

Table 7.

Critical Firearms Discharges -- NOPD Investigations

Criminal

Administrative Use of

Investigation Investigation

Force

Incident Occurred Completed

Completed

Finding

1 5-Jan-14

27-Apr-15 Justified

2 15-Jan-14

12-Mar-14

3-Apr-14 Justified

3 30-Jan-14

2-Mar-14

22-Apr-15 Justified

4 14-Feb-14

17-Feb-14

22-Apr-15 Accidental

5 15-Feb-14

24-Mar-14

24-Apr-15 Justified

6 16-Feb-14

14-Oct-14 Justified

7 10-May-14

23-Jul-14

24-Apr-15 Justified

8 11-Aug-14

22-Apr-15 Justified

9 6-Sep-14

17-Oct-14 Justified

10 14-Sep-14

22-Apr-15 Justified

11 21-Dec-14

6-Mar-15

30-Apr-15 Justified

Sent to DA for Review No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No

The reports received followed a format, we learned, that was created by the former commanding officer. After a summary of the evidence, identical to the summary found in the criminal investigation, each report addressed only the following issues:
 The functionality and state of the Involved Officer’s weapon.
 The P.O.S.T.-mandated firearm qualification status of the Involved Officer.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 43 of 135
Page 43 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Causation for the Involved Officer’s use of deadly force.
 A conclusion by the FIT investigator on whether or not the force was justified and within policy.
It was clear that the reports were assembled in haste to meet our demand. In one case, text from the report of one incident appeared in the report of an unrelated incident, as if it were cut and pasted. The focus of each report was limited to the above areas of accountability. There were no discussions of the decisions made by the officer that caused her or him to be placed into a situation where the use of force was unavoidable. For example, in the case when the subject received a graze wound to his head, the reported tactic of the officer who approached the subject with her gun in one hand and her handcuffs in the other was not thoroughly assessed for compliance with NOPD training or safe practices. As reported earlier, the investigator incredibly concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest that [the officer’s] use of deadly force was unreasonable or violated any departmental policies or procedures.”
In two of the cases found to be justified by the administrative investigation, OCDM disagrees with the findings. In one an officer fired one round at a vehicle occupied by three people. No one was hit and no arrests were made. Based on the officer’s statement, the threat from the subjects was passed when he fired his weapon. He did not report they were armed, only that as they hurried to leave the parking lot they swerved toward him. The vehicle’s right front bumper cover made contact with his right thigh and knocked him to the ground. At first he reported he was not injured but later decided to go to the hospital where he was examined and released. At the time he fired at the vehicle, the threat to him was over. The vehicle sped off and was never seen again.
In the other incident, an officer was flagged down by a woman who told him a suspicious person was knocking on doors. The officer located the suspect and attempted to speak with him. The suspect turned toward the officer and ‘displayed a defensive posture.’ The officer deployed his TASER at the suspect but it had no effect. The suspect began to advance toward the officer who then drew his firearm and ordered the suspect to the ground. A scuffle ensued during which the officer struck the male twice in the head with the gun ‘to create distance.’ The pistol discharged, striking no one. The officer was then assisted by a citizen and eventually gained control of the suspect. The officer did not report seeing a weapon nor was any weapon recovered. Based on the facts documented in the investigation, the officer was not justified in drawing and pointing his weapon. Furthermore, using a pistol as a striking weapon is an unacceptable tactic, and striking the subject in the head is prohibited unless deadly force is justified.
The administrative investigation in the first case resulted in a sustained finding for multiple rule violations, none related to the firing of the pistol. The officer was charged with violating secondary employment and timekeeping policies. He resigned before any

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 44 of 135
Page 44 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

discipline could be carried out. In the second case, the administrative investigation found no rule violations.
The impact of a critical firearms discharge on the citizen and the officers, whether involving a fatality, injury or no injury, is not inconsequential. While it may not be possible to avoid such events completely, much can be learned from conducting a comprehensive analysis of such events. Identifying each critical decision points within the event and examining the options that were available to the officer, based on what he knew at the time, could contribute to improvements in policies, training, and tactics, and thereby enhance officer safety and reduce harm to citizens. It could result in a prescriptive intervention with the involved officers to enhance their decision-making and skills.
The focus of any administrative investigation, whether it be an investigation into a use of force or into an allegation of misconduct, must not be restricted to identifying policy or rule violations and discipline; the focus must be broader to include assessment of current policies, training and equipment.19
An officer-involved shooting is best analyzed from the point the police officer is made aware of a need to respond. Each key strategic or tactical decision by the officers thereafter should be identified and subjected to a thorough review in which alternatives are considered. The process has to be structured, of course, and the reviews must ensure they consider only facts discernable before the application of force. We found none of this kind of review in the investigations of the critical incident we reviewed.
3. FIT Administrative Section Investigation Guide
On July 24, 2015, PIB appointed a new leader of the Force Investigations Team, Lt. Kevin Burns. The Monitoring Team has been working closely with Lt. Burns since his appointment and has been impressed by his ideas, his commitment, and his energy. As one example of his commitment to facilitate compliance with the Consent Decree, on September 3, 2015 (subsequent to this reporting period, but worthy of mention here), Lt. Burns prepared and submitted a revised FIT Administrative Section Investigation guide. The guide was designed to facilitate more thorough and compliance FIT administrative investigations. The Monitoring Team reviewed the guide, provided constructive feedback, and encouraged Lt. Burns to “test” it by using it to complete an administrative investigation on a case for which the criminal investigation already was completed previously. . While we expect the test will identify additional opportunities for improvement, the Monitoring Team found the current draft well thought-out and well-written and a significant improvement over prior materials.

19

NOPD’s PIB has indicated full agreement with the Monitoring Team in this regard.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 45 of 135
Page 45 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
F. Force Factor Analysis
As we have explained in earlier reports, it is important to understand police use of force in the context of suspect resistance. The relationship between the degree of resistance and the degree of force is an accepted methodology known as the “Force Factor.” In the current case, The Force Factor relies on official police reports and is used to compare only the maximum level of force used by the officer to the maximum level of resistance encountered. Other uses of the Force Factor include exploring the phases or iterations of an event that involves force. To calculate the Force Factor in our report, we coded each use of force event (Degree of Resistance 1 – Degree of Resistance 7) and degree of force (Degree of Force 1 – Degree of Force 7) each scale goes from low to high. A negative value indicates a higher level of subject resistance as compared to the level of officer force. A value of 0 indicates proportional force to the level of resistance. Positive values indicate increasing levels of force being used vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. Negative values indicate less force vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. One expects to see most uses of force in the -1 to +1 range. In other words, one expects the level of officer force applied to be equal to or no more than one step beyond the level of subject resistance. Before we explain our findings, it is important to provide the necessary qualification.
The Force Factor does not provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the officer’s decision to use force in any given situation. In other words, the Force Factor does not explain or justify any use of force. Those issues are determined by The Monitoring Team based on a review of the totality of the available evidence, including reports, witness statements, video recordings, and more; not on a statistical analysis. As noted above, this finding reflects only the official information reported by the police department. Obviously, police uses of force not reflected in Use of Force Reports are NOT reflected in our data. Likewise, Use of Force Reports that include inaccurate accounts of the events could skew the results of our assessment as well.
The Force Factor is calculated simply as follows:
A negative value indicates a higher level of subject resistance as compared to the level of officer force. A value of 0 indicates proportional force to the level of resistance. Positive values indicate increasing levels of force being used vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. Negative values indicate less force vis-à-vis the level of subject resistance. One expects to see most uses of force in the -1 to +1 range. In other words, one expects the level of officer force applied to be equal to or no more than one step beyond the level of subject resistance. Our Force Factor assessment gave us the following results.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 46 of 135
Page 46 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Percent of Incidents

Figure 3. Percent of Use of Force Incidents by Force Factor

Percent of Use of Force Incidents by Force Factor

35%

32.6%

30%

29.2%

25%

20% 15%

15.2%

10%

6.7%

6.7% 5.6%

5%

2.2%

0.6%

0.6% 0.6%

0%

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

6

Force Factor

This figure presents the percent of use of force incidents by the calculated force factor (i.e., officer force – subject resistance). A majority of incidents have a force factor between -1 and +1 (77%). Only 9.5% of incidents had a force factor of -2 or lower and 13.5% had a force factor of +2 or higher. In other words, instances of potential disproportionate force to resistance existed, but did not dominate the data we reviewed. Importantly, this finding does not provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the officer’s decision to use force in any given situation. The Monitoring Team based those assessments upon a review of the totality of the available evidence, including reports, witness statements, video recordings, and more; not on a statistical analysis.
Further, as noted above, this finding goes only as far as the data reviewed. Obviously, police uses of force not reflected in Use of Force Reports are NOT reflected in our data. Likewise, Use of Force Reports that include inaccurate accounts of the events could skew the results of our assessment as well.
While it is not our place to tell NOPD how to analyze and use its evidence and data on the use of force, as we have been creating a general Force Factor score, we believe NOPD can take our preliminary figures, expand them, and create Force Factor scores for Districts,

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 47 of 135 Page 47 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
assignments, and even calls for service. Once these scores are created, NOPD can determine which areas, districts and calls for service are in need of the most attention in managing use of force in terms of training, supervision, and accountability.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 48 of 135
Page 48 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. VEHICLE PURSUITS
Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Consent Decree deal with Vehicle Pursuits. Among other things, paragraph 30 prohibits vehicle pursuits
except where an officer obtains express supervisory approval, and the officer and supervisor have considered multiple factors and determined that the immediate danger to the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large.
Paragraph 31, on the other hand, focuses on the tracking and analysis of vehicle pursuits. Specifically, paragraph 31 requires that NOPD
track and analyze vehicle pursuits, including the violation that prompted the pursuit; the officer(s) involved in the pursuit; the supervisor approving the pursuit; the outcome of the pursuit; any officer, suspect, or bystander injuries or deaths; property damage; and related criminal or civil legal actions.
The Consent Decree further requires that vehicle pursuit data and analysis “be included in the EWS [Early Warning System] and in NOPD’s Use of Force Annual report.”
The Monitoring Team reviewed NOPD’s data relating to vehicle pursuits from January 2014 and February 2015. Our review shows that NOPD has improved its datakeeping function, but needs further improvement. Specifically, NOPD records each pursuit as a data element, but does not yet capture the specific reason for the pursuit, and does not capture whether or not a supervisor approved the pursuit. See Appendix 1. While there have not been a great number of pursuits, it is important to determine whether or not the ones conducted are within the NOPD policy. These data can serve as a baseline for future monitoring.
Appendix 1, Tables 11 - 16 provide the data underlying the Monitoring Team’s vehicle pursuit analysis. While the data speak for themselves, here is a summary of some of the more notable findings:
 21 of the 66 (32%) pursuits that occurred between January 2014 and February 2015 were prompted by felony crimes (and hit and runs). The data

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 49 of 135
Page 49 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
maintained by NOPD, however, do not provide insight into whether the crime was a violent felony.20
 27 of the pursuits that occurred during this period were prompted by traffic violations or misdemeanors. While one would not expect a vehicle pursuit in these circumstances, additional data would help NOPD make that determination for itself.
 Roughly 25% of pursuits in 2014 resulted in some degree of property damage. In the first 2 months of 2015, at least 40% of pursuits resulted in property damage. No charges were filed against any of the officers, or the city of New Orleans, for pursuits occurring between January 2014 and February 2015.
 About 65% of pursuits in 2014 resulted in the suspect stopping voluntarily. About 45% of pursuits in 2014 resulted in the suspect stopping, but then fleeing on foot. In January and February of 2015, 50% of pursuits resulted in the suspect stopping voluntarily (at least 4 of whom then fled on foot).
 Almost 10% of pursuits in 2014 resulted in either the suspect being involved in a collision or the officer’s car being disabled.
 NOPD terminated roughly 12% of pursuits in 2014. NOPD terminated 30% of pursuits occurring in January and February 2015. More specificity would be helpful here as well. In some cases the data indicate that the pursued vehicle stopped, but nothing further. Other cases were more specific— indicating what happened after the vehicle stopped (e.g., suspect fled and escaped, or suspect fled and was arrested).
In the future, NOPD should explore the possibility of including, in addition to the greater specificity of the underlying crime as noted above, the characteristics of the officer (age, gender, race, shift, squad, experience, etc.) to see if any patterns emerge with respect to the reasons for initiating the pursuits and the pursuit outcomes.21

20

While NOPD’s Vehicle Pursuit policy authorizes a vehicle pursuit only in the case of a violent felony, it

is important that NOPD collect data on all vehicle pursuits whether or not within policy.

21

NOPD has created an internal system to capture these data. The system includes a new vehicle

pursuit form created in consultation with the Monitoring Team, which will be released concurrent

with the Department’s new vehicle pursuit policy.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 50 of 135
Page 50 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
X. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM
Section IV of the Consent Decree deals with the establishment of a Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) within the NOPD. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”), a CIT program is a “local initiative designed to improve the way law enforcement and the community respond to people experiencing mental health crises.” The Consent Decree requires NOPD to stand up a CIT and implement an effective crisis intervention structure in order “to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.”
In our fourth quarter report for 2014, we found NOPD had made almost no progress toward complying with its CIT obligations during the reporting period. We noted, however, “subsequent to this reporting period, the NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit, with the urging of the Monitoring Team, has begun pushing NOPD forward in this area.” Specifically, we noted “a Crisis Intervention Team Planning Committee has been formed and plans to meet in January 2015.” OCDM December 2014 Report at 10.
As noted in our last report, NOPD stood up its CIT Planning Committee and held a kick-off meeting in early 2015. The meeting was facilitated by Mr. Danny Murphy of NOPD’s Compliance Bureau, and was attended by NOPD managers, EMS professionals, two judges, Coroner Jeffrey C. Rouse, M.D., senior management of the Metropolitan Human Services District, and a number of community health care experts. The Monitoring Team attended the meeting and was very impressed.
Subsequently, the Monitoring Team has closely monitored the progress of the implementation of the CIT program.
Since our last report, NOPD has held multiple CIT Planning Committee meetings, developed a CIT policy and a crisis transportation policy, held a “train-the-trainer” session in May taught by Dr. Randy DuPont (the “father” of the modern CIT program), created a special email address to make it easier for officers to find out about and become involved in the program, and, most recently, conducted the first week-long CIT training for volunteer NOPD officers.
CIT participants are selected from among the various NOPD districts and platoons. To help generate interest, NOPD’s Compliance Bureau, its Officer Assistance & Support Director, and its recently-appointed CIT program manager visited the various police districts throughout the City to describe the program, its benefits to officers, their families, and the community, and the process to become involved.
To become a CIT officer, one must apply and be accepted into the CIT program. Each interested officer must go through a panel interview developed in accordance with the “Memphis Model.” Each officer must be in good standing, have a supervisor

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 51 of 135
Page 51 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recommendation, and undergo a PIB review. CIT participants receive no extra money, but they do receive a CIT lapel pin, extra training, and, it should not be forgotten, the opportunity to serve the community and their fellow officers in a way most other officers cannot. Each CIT officer goes through 40 hours of special CIT training, the first session of which took place in late August.
The Monitoring Team reviewed the training conducted in late August and found it to be well thought-out and smartly implemented. Here is a summary of the training:
 DAY 1. Monday began with an introduction to Crisis Intervention concepts, language, and the structure of the program led by the newly-assigned CIT program director Sgt. Marc Hedgemon. Following this half hour introduction, the newly appointed CIT team member Cecile Tebo taught a segment on the signs and symptoms of chronic mental illness. Following a lunch break, the students heard from two medical experts who focused on developmental disabilities and personality disorders. Finally, Day 1 ended with a legal discussion led by Ms. Tebo.
 DAY 2. Tuesday started with a discussion of legal issues and NOPD’s pending CIT policy followed by a series of field trips to five community facilities, including University Hospital, the Veterans Center, and others.
 DAY 3. Wednesday opened with training on substance abuse and law enforcement followed by a discussion of medical issues led by New Orleans EMS. The rest of the third day focused on crisis intervention techniques, in many ways the core of the CIT training. The techniques were taught by Sgt. Hegemon, a long-time police officer and a registered nurse, and are based upon the CIT model pioneered by Dr. Dupont and others in Memphis.
 DAY 4. Thursday included several modules focused on specific “consumers” of mental health services. The morning began with a presentation by the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) called “In Our Own Voice.” The NAMI presentation is designed to “change attitudes, assumptions and stereotypes by describing the reality of living with mental illness.” Following the NAMI discussion, the instruction moved to educating students about the resources available to police officers and consumers with respect to homeless assistance, veteran mental health assistance, and special assistance for children and adolescents.
 DAY 5. Friday focused on role playing, a critical element of the Memphis model of teaching crisis intervention. The students and instructors spent most of the day practicing, critiquing, and honing the various crisis intervention skills learned throughout the week. The students also had the

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 52 of 135
Page 52 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
opportunity to watch and discuss a BWC video recording of a recent successful NOPD intervention.22 Following the program, a modest “graduation” ceremony was held to recognize the students’ accomplishment.
The Monitoring Team interviewed several CIT candidates prior to the August training and was impressed by their commitment to – and, frankly, their excitement about – the program. We then interviewed several additional officers following the training to gain their perspective of the quality of the training. All felt the training was important, engaging, and well-presented.23
So far, 24 officers have taken and passed the new CIT training and now are designated as CIT officers. Future training sessions are being scheduled for November 2015, the Spring of 2016, and the Fall of 2016. NOPD is on target to have 20% of its patrol officers CIT trained by August 2016.
Our one criticism of the CIT program was that the current program manager, Sgt. Marc Hedgemon, initially had been given substantial new responsibilities, but had not been relieved of any of his current supervisory responsibilities. Just prior to the publication of this Quarterly Report, however, this changed. Sergeant Hedgemon now has been detailed to the CIT program until mid-November to help ensure the CIT program is fully operational. This is an important and welcomed change. No matter how much energy Sgt. Hedgemon has – and from our many interactions with him over the past two years, he has quite a lot – the task likely would have proven to be too much for one, part-time manager. The CIT program, for now at least, requires a full time manager to deal with the various training issues, logistics issues, roll out issues, and major reporting, data collection, and data analysis issues.

22

The Monitoring Team commends NOPD for its use of recent BWC videos in the CIT training. The

Monitoring Team for some time has been pushing for a similar use of BWC videos at the Academy,

and is impressed by the CIT’s leadership to do precisely that without our prompting.

23

Representative comments from the CIT officers regarding the recently-conducted training include

the following: (A) “The class was very helpful and I can see where a lot of these methods, more

specifically de-escalation, can be used in a variety of ways in regular every day patrolling and service

calls.” (B) “The training was amazing! Sincerely, thank you for considering me for this class. We need

more of this type of training. Not only will it improve community relations, but I absolutely believe

that if we put this practice into use, we will have far fewer use of force incidents. Thank You!” (C) “I

was very pleased with the training. It shed a light on the severity of the mental illness problem we

have here.” (D) “One highlight for me was the sharing of the stories from the persons who suffer

from a mental illness. A personal account of what it is like to live with [a mental illness] gave me a

better understanding.”

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 53 of 135 Page 53 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In short, we continue to be impressed by the work NOPD is doing in this area. The commitment of those involved, the thoughtfulness of the program’s structure, and the quality of the materials is obvious. Notwithstanding a slow start, NOPD now is well on its way toward full compliance with the Consent Decree’s CIT requirements.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 54 of 135
Page 54 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS
As noted above, on November 12, 2014, the New Orleans Office of Inspector General released the results of an inquiry into sex crime investigations by five detectives in the Special Victims Section of the New Orleans Police Department. The OIG Investigations Division reviewed 90 randomly selected NOPD sex crime related reports, and found, among other problems, significant concerns with 23 reports from five detectives. The Monitoring Team has been closely observing the NOPD’s response to the OIG findings since November, including regularly meeting with the OIG, reviewing the results of NOPD’s re-investigations, and monitoring PIB’s ongoing investigations of the detective’s implicated in the OIG’s report.
In November 2014, as a result of the OIG’s troubling findings, Mayor Landrieu appointed a Task Force, led by NOPD Commander Paul Noel, to reinvestigate the cases included in the audit. The Mayor also directed Chief Harrison to make immediate reforms to ensure the events described in the OIG’s report could never happen again. The Mayor’s Advisory Committee sought input from survivors, advocates, the DA’s office, and from within the Department to identify systemic problems and to offer solutions.
On August 11, 2015, the Mayor held a press conference to report the results of the work of the Advisory Committee. Among the structural and practical improvements NOPD has implemented are the following:
 NOPD assigned two new detectives and one new supervisor to the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse units, and Chief Harrison committed to doubling the size of both units as the Department grows.
 Sex Crimes and Child Abuse detectives no longer may be a part of the rotation for special events duty, a change which keeps detectives focused on investigations and allows an already short-staffed office more time to do investigation work.
 Detectives now have pre-approved authorization to work overtime when necessary to conduct adequate investigations, a change that will help ensure detectives do not improperly hurry their investigations.
 NOPD has provided detectives with new equipment to assist in their investigations of sex crimes, including new vehicles, smart phones, digital cameras, and laptops.
 New policies have been drafted and currently are being reviewed by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 55 of 135
Page 55 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 The Department has strengthened supervision by requiring regular, detailed case review, using an investigative checklist, as well as by conducting a qualitative review of taped interviews.
 New training modules have been developed for sexual assault, and detectives are now required to receive 32 hours of specialized training, including individualized training in interviewing skills.
 All officers in the department, and all new recruits, now will receive four hours of training on sexual assault response based on national best practices.
 The Department has hired a third DNA analyst at the State Crime Lab to more quickly process rape kits.
 To avoid any future backlogs, the department has tightened its policies on sexual assault kits, requiring that DNA request forms be submitted to the DNA officer within 24 hours and written reports be provided to explain any delays in submission.
The Monitoring Team has confirmed the foregoing corrective actions have been implemented.24 We are in the process now of evaluating whether those actions are being implemented effectively and are having the desired outcome.
In addition to the foregoing enhancements, the Advisory Committee recommended and the NOPD accepted a number of changes focusing specifically on the survivor of the sexual assault, including housing the NOPD sex crimes unit in the NOFJC where victims who meet with detectives immediately can connect with counseling and other victim resources. Further, (a) the NOPD is currently hiring three social workers to respond with detectives to assist with victim follow-ups, (b) a representative of victim advocates soon will be involved in selecting detectives who will be assigned to the sex crimes unit, (c) in order to attract and retain the best detectives in the SVU, a 5% incentive pay increase will be proposed in the 2016-2017 budget, and (d) to expedite the clearing of the current backlog, the current backlog of 180 SAKs will be tested at a private lab.
24 We should add here a word concerning the quality of the policy drafting process that led to the new policies referenced above. According to Dr. Tania Tetlow, a member of the Mayor’s Task Force and the former director of the Domestic Violence Center at Tulane University, the process by which NOPD crafted the new policies was excellent. The Department engaged outside experts and advocates who worked hand-in-hand with the Department’s and the City’s own resources. The Department of Justice likewise commended the policy drafting process. It was an impressive example of multiple stakeholders working together to solve a critical important problem.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 56 of 135
Page 56 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CD 223-233)
A. Community Engagement Survey
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to support community groups in each District and to meet regularly with the communities each District serves. (CD 227) The Monitoring regularly meets with and surveys community- and faith-based organizations to determine if NOPD is meeting this obligation. Earlier this year, the Monitoring Team distributed an electronic questionnaire to neighborhood and community leaders and/or administrators about their relationship and interaction with the NOPD. The questionnaire was distributed electronically or hand-delivered to 627 neighborhood and civic associations, non-profit organizations, and faith-based institutions.25 Following the initial distribution of the questionnaire, each organization was contacted by telephone (where a telephone number was provided) or in person and asked to participate in the survey. Ultimately, 76 organizations responded to our questionnaire.
The organizations represented neighborhood and civic associations, communitybased organizations, direct service providers, non-profits institutions and faith-based institutions with organizational missions as detailed in the table below.
Organizational Mission

9%

16%

60%

15%

Quality of Life Service Provider Faith-Based Non-Profit

25

Neighborhood Associations were taken from the City of New Orleans' Office of Community

Engagement webpage (http://nola.gov/neighborhood-engagement/organizations/).

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 57 of 135
Page 57 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Of the 76 responding organizations, 60% noted faith-based missions and 16% indicated quality of life as their organizational charge. Direct service providers accounted for 15% of the total and other non-profits represent 9%.
The respondents were asked about the geographic area they serve and the NOPD District that serves their organization. All eight NOPD Districts were represented in the survey outcomes as detailed below.

Participation By District

4% 8% 11%

14%

13%

11% 17%

13% 9%

NOPD District 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Among other things, each respondent was asked about the importance of having a good relationship between the NOPD and their organization, and each advised that a relationship with NOPD is important or very important. When asked to describe the relationship between their organization and the NOPD, responses ranged from very good to poor as illustrated below, with most indicating they had a “very good” relationship with the NOPD.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 58 of 135
Page 58 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Relationship with NOPD
Very Good Good Working Poor

17% 33%

39%

11%
Most respondents (49%) reported a good or very good relationship with the NOPD. A third (33%) described their relationship as working (i.e. working relationship, getting better, could be better, cordial, etc.) and 17% characterized the relationship as poor (i.e. mistrustful, strained, unapproachable, antagonistic, disrespectful, etc.).
When asked if they believed the NOPD to be responsive to requests for information or assistance, respondents overwhelmingly characterized the NOPD as responsive, with 85% advising that the NOPD is responsive or very responsive, 12% advising that the NOPD is somewhat responsive and only 3% characterizing the NOPD as unresponsive.
Respondents were asked if representatives of the NOPD participate in their events and if they participate in events sponsored by the Department with similar results as illustrated below.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 59 of 135
Page 59 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Participation in Community Events
Community Participation in NOPD Events NOPD Participation in Community Events

14% No
10%

Sometimes

8% 11%

78% Yes
79%

Here again the overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that the NOPD participates in their events and activities and that they are invited to and participate in events and activities hosted by the Department at 79% and 78% respectively.
When asked for recommendations to improve NOPD support of community organizations and constituents/members, 40% of respondents recommended outreach and communications (accessibility, better communications, more engagement, come out and meet the businesses, participate in community, etc.) and 10% specifically recommended more community policing. Twenty-nine percent of respondents recommended more patrols and 21% advised that the NOPD does a good or great job and had no recommendations for improvement.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 60 of 135
Page 60 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

What Can NOPD Do Better

21% 10%
29%

40%

Outreach Communications Patrols
Community Policing
They Do Enough

The results of our questionnaire are generally consistent with our team’s own observations.
B. Availability of Information
The Consent Decree also required the City and NOPD to make complaint forms and informational materials, including brochures and posters, available at appropriate government properties, including, at a minimum, NOPD headquarters, District stations, NOPD and City websites, City Hall, courthouses within New Orleans, all public libraries, the IPM, the Orleans Public Defenders, and at the offices or gathering places of community groups. Our last quarterly report revealed NOPD was not in compliance with these requirements. We are pleased to report, NOPD took a major step forward this past quarter.
Earlier this year, the Monitoring Team conducted unannounced site visits to the various NOPD Districts, as well as to NOPD Headquarters, the Public Integrity Bureau (PIB), and City Hall to determine the availability of complaint forms and relevant informational materials. All NOPD district locations with the exception of the 5th District were able to provide a written copy of the complaint form. The 5th District provided a pamphlet describing the complaint process. Complaint forms also were available at PIB and NOPD Headquarters.
Relative to accessibility, only the 3rd, 7th, and 8th Districts and Headquarters had complaint forms in plain sight. As well, the complaint pamphlets at the 5th District were in plain sight. At all other locations the forms had to be requested from NOPD Personnel, but were provided when requested.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 61 of 135
Page 61 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Of the eight Libraries visited, only two (Broad Street and Napoleon Avenue) provided complaints forms. Of the government locations, the Independent Police Monitor (IPM) provided a copy of the complaint form and City Hall provided a copy of the pamphlet. Complaint forms were not available at Criminal, Juvenile or Traffic Court buildings.
While NOPD is not yet in full compliance, it has shown great improvement from our prior assessment. Its progress in the area of posting and maintaining “permanent placards at all police facilities describing the external complaint process” (CD 386), however, was less great. Our site visit of all NOPD Districts, as well as NOPD Headquarters, PIB and City Hall revealed the absence of placards, posters, or information in public view at all locations except the 2nd District which had signage located behind the counter, but still in citizen view.
With respect to its obligation to maintain complaint forms and related information in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese (CD 387), NOPD remains in non-compliance. Our site visit to all NOPD Districts, as well as NOPD Headquarters, PIB and City Hall revealed there were no forms available in Spanish or Vietnamese and no posted information in Spanish or Vietnamese at any location.
Finally, the Monitoring Team also assessed the Department’s compliance with Consent Decree paragraph 427, which required NOPD to make its audit reports related to implementation of the Consent Decree publicly available via website and at the Police Department, City Hall, and other public locations. Our unannounced visits to the various police Districts revealed partial compliance. First, NOPD does post the Consent Decree, its reports, and the Monitoring Team’s reports on its web site. The Consent Decree likewise is available in the various police districts as well as Headquarters, PIB, and the IPM’s office. Copies of the Consent Decree were not evidenced at our visits to the Public Libraries, Civil, Criminal and Traffic Court, and City Hall. Nor were we able easily to locate hard copies of NOPD’s audit report in these locations or in the police districts.
C. Mardi Gras Indians
On August 12, 2015, the Monitoring Team attended a special New Orleans City Council Criminal Justice Committee meeting honoring the Mardi Gras Indians generally, and the late Big Chief “Tootie” Montana specifically, for their peaceful work with the City to improve relations among the City, the NOPD, and the various tribes. As is well known through New Orleans, Chief Montana died at the City Hall podium on June 27, 2005 while speaking about police relations during the Saint Joseph’s night celebrations. At that time, the relationship between the police department and the Mardi Gras Indians was a combative one.
At the August event, the City honored Chief Montana with a plaque situated on the podium recognizing his 50 years fighting peacefully for respect and recognition of the

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 62 of 135
Page 62 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Mardi Gras Indians. The Chief’s family spoke about what a good man he was and how he taught them respect for others.
The Police Department was well-represented at the meeting with Chief Harrison, Chief Bardy, and most District Commanders in attendance. Notably, the Indian representatives gave current Deputy Chief Bardy much of the credit for repairing the thenbroken relationship between the police department and the Indians, and for his continuing support of the Indians to this day. Chief Bardy spoke at the event, noting that he did what he did “because it was the right thing to do.”
The Monitoring Team monitored the interaction between the NOPD and the Mardi Gras Indians on St. Joseph’s night this year, and was extremely impressed by the professionalism, helpfulness, and cultural sensitivity of the officers and supervisors on patrol. What we viewed first-hand was consistent with the comments we heard at the City Council event. Deputy Chief Bardy stood side-by-side his officers throughout the evening. It was a great example of leadership and supervision. We witnessed a number of Mardi Gras Indians – and passers-by for that matter – approach police officers simply to say “thank you.” The entire event was impressive and provided a great illustration of the distance NOPD has come in this area.
We are hopeful NOPD learns from its success with the Mardi Gras Indians, and applies that same level of energy, patience, and cultural sensitivity to the other groups with which it interacts on a daily basis. In his remarks at the event honoring Chief Montana, Chief Harrison spoke of expanding cultural training at the Academy. The Monitoring Team wholeheartedly agrees that such training is necessary.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 63 of 135
Page 63 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. COMMUNITY SURVEY (CD 223-233)
Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” To meet this requirement, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the Department of Justice to develop a three-part survey that would measure public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters. The surveys were designed to include a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. (CD 231)
The first phase of the survey was conducted in April, 2014 and included more than 400 police department sworn officers and supervisors. The two additional phases of the Biennial Survey – the Community Survey and the Detainee Survey – were conducted in December, 2014. The Detainee Survey was conducted in the Orleans Parish Prison by senior members of the Monitoring Team with the permission and cooperation of the Orleans Parish Sherriff. The Community Survey was conducted door-to-door by local residents trained and overseen by the Monitoring Team. Details regarding demographics of the Community Survey respondents have been reprinted in Appendix 2, Table 1.
The results of all three phases of the Biennial Survey were reported in the Appendices of Monitoring Team’s last quarterly report, issued April 28, 2015. This quarter’s report now breaks down the Community Survey results by respondent demographics (e.g., gender, race, age).
Appendix 2, Tables 1.1 through 7.6 present the results of our demographic analysis of the Community Survey data. An asterisk (* or **) in the right-hand column indicate that the difference between the comparison groups is statistically significant. For example, question 1 on Table 1.6 presents the following survey question:
New Orleans police officers treat members of the African American community fairly.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement. A higher number indicated more agreement than a lower number. As shown in Table 3.6, we compared the results of white respondents with racial minority respondents. The comparison shows the average score among whites to be 1.98 versus the average score among racial minorities to be 2.30. As this difference is statistically significant, the table shows an asterisk (*) to the right of the results.
The concept of statistical significance is an important one. Differences in results that are not statistically significant could be the result of nothing more than chance. Differences in results that are statistically significant bring with them a high degree of

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 64 of 135
Page 64 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
confidence that the results are meaningful. For example, in Table 1.1 (Appendix 2) female respondents, on average, were more likely to agree with the statement “I felt the police officer was trustworthy” compared to male respondents. In other words, females had higher average scores on this item than males. The statistical significance of this difference (2.57 compared to 2.76) indicates we can be highly confident (95% confident, to be technical) that females score higher than males on this question in the overall population. In contrast, females appear also to be more likely to agree with the statement “I had confidence the police officer was following the correct police procedure” compared to males. The mean difference here (2.63 compared to 2.67), however, was not statistically significant. This suggests the difference simply could have been observed by chance. In the end, we have more confidence in the mean differences in each of the tables that are statistically significant.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 65 of 135
Page 65 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. TRAINING (CD 245-288)
NOPD’s efforts to improve its Academy, its instructors, and its training programs continue to be a primary focus of the Monitoring Team. We are pleased to report NOPD is making progress in this area. While a future Special Report will be dedicated to the topic of training, the following bullets summarize the areas in which we have seen recent progress:
 Physical Plant
On June 23, 2015 NOPD moved its Academy from its prior cramped, run-down home next to the Third District to larger, newer space on UNO’s campus in northern New Orleans. The new space provides significant advantages to students and teachers, and is much more conducive to learning. Chief Harrison as well as Judge Morgan were on hand for the ribbon cutting ceremony.
 Leadership
On May 18, Chief Harrison appointed former NOPD police chief Duane Johnson to serve as Curriculum Director, working closely with Academy Director Commander Richard Williams. The Monitoring Team now has worked closely with both Mr. Johnson and Commander Williams for several months and continues to be impressed with their commitment and energy. Within days of coming on board, for example, Mr. Johnson had developed an accountability matrix for the Academy. NOPD and the Monitoring Team continue to use this matrix to track the Academy’s progress.
 Lesson Plans
As past Quarterly Reports have indicated, the Monitoring Team has been frustrated for some time over the lack of progress in developing lesson plans. As the fundamental document that encompasses what will be taught and how it will be taught, lesson plans should have been in existence long ago. Over the past 3 months, the Monitoring Team finally is seeing progress in this area. While that progress needs to continue and, indeed, accelerate, we now are seeing far more progress than we saw before. Currently, as shown in the table below, 52 of 164 lesson plans have been drafted, reviewed by Academy management, revised if necessary, and submitted to the NOPD Compliance Bureau for final review before heading to the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 66 of 135
Page 66 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Lesson Plan Development

Total Lesson Plans

Awaiting First Draft From Instructor

Awaiting Academy Review

Recruit

123

29

0

In-Service

12

1

0

FTO

8

4

0

New

21

9

0

Supervisor

Totals

164

0

0

Awaiting Revised Draft From Instructor

Awaiting Final Review From Compliance
Bureau

59

35

6

5

2

2

2

10

52

10

While this number represents only 32% of all lesson plans that need to be drafted, and while the speed at which NOPD is moving in this area continues to frustrate the Monitoring Team, the recent forward movement in contrast to prior stagnation causes us to list this accomplishment among NOPD’s successes.

 Academy Manual

While still not complete, the Academy has moved forward with the development of a comprehensive manual covering all aspects of the Academy, from the hiring and evaluation of Academy staff, to the development of lesson plans and materials, to the evaluation of the quality of courses and teachers.

*

*

*

The foregoing successes, however, must be tempered with sluggishness in other areas. Notwithstanding NOPD’s efforts, the Academy still is operating without a strategic plan, a training manual, a full set of lesson plans, or a cohesive hiring plan. Likewise, while progress has been made in this area, the Academy still has not performed a “gap analysis” designed to identify areas in need of improvement.26

26

More recently, the NOPD Academy has made progress in each of these areas, including working

closely with the Monitoring Team to perform a meaningful gap analysis.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 67 of 135
Page 67 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Academy also has failed to make adequate progress in other areas, including record keeping (CD 245-251),27 supervisor training (CD 314-315), and the Field Training program (CD 275-282). The Monitoring Team recognizes, however, that the Academy Staff currently lacks sufficient personnel to come into compliance with all areas of the Consent Decree at the same time. We feel, against this unfortunate constraint, the Academy has done a good job prioritizing the many tasks it must tackle.
At bottom, our primary criticism of NOPD’s efforts is that, while progress is being made, it is coming too slowly. There are several reasons for this. First, as just noted, the Academy is not robustly staffed. NOPD management is asking a lot of a small number of people. Second, as noted above, the Academy still does not have a strategic plan, or even a training manual to help guide its reformation. Third, the hiring of new personnel takes far too long. This obstacle – which, in all fairness, seems to be more properly laid at the feet of the Civil Service Department than the NOPD – has plagued not only the Academy, but other functions within NOPD as well. NOPD and the City must work to breakdown each of these inhibitors to progress.

27

NOPD soon will be implementing a new software program called PowerDMS, which, once fully rolled

out, should help alleviate most of the Academy’s record keeping problems.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 68 of 135
Page 68 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. OFFICER ASSISTANCE & SUPPORT
Section XIII of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.” NOPD also must “develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services that comports with best practices and current professional standards, which include: readily accessible confidential counseling services with both direct and indirect referrals; critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling; peer counseling; and stress management training. (CD 289) After months of inactivity, in May 2015, NOPD finally took a positive step forward in instituting an Officer Assistance & Support Program. Specifically, on May 22, 2015, NOPD announced the appointment of a full-time civilian Director of Officer Assistance Program, Cecile Tebo, a licensed clinical social worker who previously helped the Department create its first crisis transportation unit.
The notice announcing the appointment of Ms. Tebo explained that she will “develop and implement a comprehensive, confidential counseling program for officers, civilian members and their families.” The notice went on to explain:
The program has been designed to promote mental health wellness for all employees and their families with direct intervention and immediate availability. The program will offer individual, couple and family counseling services, along with outside referrals, if the need arises.
The NOPD created this outreach effort to ensure all employees have access to confidential mental health services. Deputy Chiefs, Commanders and all supervisors should apprise their officers and support staff of this vital program and encourage them to use it when appropriate.
The new office is housed at NOPD Headquarters and, even though it is not fully staffed yet, already has begun providing support to officers. In fact, on the evening of the tragic death of Officer Daryl Holloway, Ms. Tebo was instrumental in making available professional, faith, and peer support resources for NOPD officers impacted by the tragic loss of a colleague.
While the Monitoring Team finds NOPD not yet compliant with its obligation to “develop and offer a centralized and comprehensive range of mental health services,” and remains concerned with the speed of the roll-out of the full breadth of Officer Assistance & Support resources required by the Consent Decree, we recognize the appointment of Ms. Tebo as an important and meaningful step forward.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 69 of 135
Page 69 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVI. SUPERVISION (CD XV)
The Monitoring Team issued a Special Report focusing on supervision on July 21, 2015. Prior to that, Judge Morgan held a public hearing focusing on the Monitoring Team’s findings regarding the Department’s non-compliance with many of the Consent Decree requirements relating to supervision. The Monitoring Team continues to spend significant time focusing on this area and plans to issue a follow-up Special Report in the near future to assess the many corrective actions promised by the Department. In the meantime, however, NOPD has shown some recent progress in the following areas.
A. Custodial Interrogations
As we have for most every quarter since the outset of the monitorship, the Monitoring Team continues to conduct monthly detailed audits of each district’s compliance with the Custodial Interrogation requirements of the Consent Decree. Unfortunately, NOPD continues to struggle to achieve substantial compliance in this area. Much of this struggle has been due to the absence of a good interrogation room camera system. In response to the Monitoring Team’s identification of multiple nonfunctioning cameras, the Department began using BWCs to record custodial interrogations. While we applaud NOPD for its creativity in devising a short-term solution to the problem, the solution has not been complete. The Monitoring Team’s most recent audit continued to find most districts making multiple errors even with functioning BWCs, including not properly logging BWC recordings correctly, not being able to retrieve recordings when asked, misplacement of the camera in the interrogation rooms, and placing items in front of the camera that affect the video and audio.
While most districts continue to be in non-compliance with the Custodial Interrogation requirements of the Consent Decree, we are pleased to report that District 6 has attained substantial compliance with nearly all Consent Decree paragraphs in this area. The Sixth District demonstrated that even with a less-than-desirable camera system, NOPD can achieve compliance simply by paying attention to the details.28
B. Photographic Line-Ups
As with Custodial Interrogations, the Monitoring Team continues to audit NOPD’s compliance with its Photographic Line-Up obligations every month. While NOPD continued to be out of compliance in this area prior to May 2015, in July 2015 Judge Morgan joined

28

NOPD’s Sixth District also made considerable progress in other areas of the Consent Decree relating

to supervision. The Monitoring Team has recommended that the Department use the Sixth District

as a model to help the other districts improve their compliance levels.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 70 of 135
Page 70 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
the Monitoring Team on its monthly district-by-district audit. The Judge’s visit apparently was the impetus the District needed. Consequently, since May 2015, nearly every police district has made significant progress in this area. Indeed, as of July 2015, nearly every district and unit had reached substantial compliance. And some units are at 100% compliance.
C. Body Worn Cameras
Since a supervisor cannot be everywhere at once, the availability of BWC recordings is quickly becoming a critical element of full and effective supervision. Not only do these recordings give supervisors (and the Monitoring Team) timely visibility into police/citizen interactions throughout New Orleans, but they provide a more accurate picture of those interactions in that the actions of the officers have not been colored by the proximity of a supervisor (or a Monitor) looking over the officer’s shoulder watching his/her every move.
As noted elsewhere in this report, and in our prior reports, NOPD deserves significant credit for embracing BWCs and rolling them out to patrol officers even though the requirement is not included in the Consent Decree. As of August 2015, all regular patrol officers in all districts have been issued BWCs. This is a significant – and costly – accomplishment.
The Monitoring Team’s one remaining criticism of the roll out of the BWCs relates to those officers who have not yet been given the cameras. Currently, sergeants, for example, are not issued BWCs. While we acknowledge the high cost of cameras, and agree with the Department’s prioritization of camera deployments (i.e., platoon officers first), we hope the City finds funds to outfit sergeants with cameras soon. It is a common occurrence to have sergeants answering calls for service alongside – or even instead of – patrol officers. In that context, BWCs should be issued to sergeants.
Interestingly, while many officers resisted the issuance of BWCs initially, the attitude toward the cameras has notably shifted. The Monitoring Team now is far more likely to hear a sergeant complaining that he or she wants a camera than an officer complaining about having to wear one.
D. Camera Discipline
As of August 2015, NOPD has initiated 143 investigations relating to activating Body Worn Cameras. Of the 79 investigations initiated in 2015, 38 resulted in the investigation “sustaining” the complaint (i.e., finding that the complaint was valid and the officer should be counseled and/or disciplined). So far, of those 38 sustained complaints, NOPD has held 12 hearings and another 26 had been scheduled as of the drafting of this Quarterly Report. Of the 12 hearings held, 10 officers received a 1-day suspension, and 2 officers received a 5day suspension.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 71 of 135
Page 71 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

While it still is too early to assess whether NOPD’s disciplinary process is effectively prompting officers to activate their cameras properly and consistently, anecdotally the Monitoring Team can say camera use is most definitely becoming the norm among officers. We rarely see officers on scenes without their cameras activated. While NOPD officers obviously have not achieved perfection in this regard, progress is being made. Our observations in this regard, of course, will be confirmed (or not) by the actual data. Several months ago, the Monitoring Team conducted a baseline review of camera usage by NOPD officers. We now are in the process of conducting a follow-up review and will report the results, which we expect will show positive trends, in a forthcoming report.
In the meantime, other data suggest progress is being made. In 2014, for example, PIB received 64 complaints regarding camera non-use or misuse. (Importantly, this number should not be surprising considering cameras still were a new technology in 2014.) Of those 64 complaints, 15 were initiated by NOPD supervisors and 49 were initiated by citizens. So far in 2015, however, PIB has received 79 camera related complaints. That this number is higher than the prior year should be expected and, frankly, is not a negative. First, more officers have cameras than in 2014. Second, with the Monitoring Team and the NOPD Compliance Bureau closely observing supervisors and their review of BWC recordings, those supervisors are more diligently reviewing BWC videos in 2015 than they were in 2014. The following graph is instructive:
BWC Discipline

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
5 0
Rank-Initiated

Citizen-Initiated

2014 2015

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 72 of 135
Page 72 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Notably, the number of citizen-initiated complaints has remained mostly constant since 2014, but the number of supervisor-initiated complaints has gone up significantly. While, obviously, we want to see fewer complaints over time, at this point, an increase in such complaints is a good thing and reflects positively on NOPD.
E. In-Car Cameras
As noted in our last several Quarterly Reports, NOPD’s in-car cameras frequently were non-operative. It turned out, much of the problem here was due to outdated technology and inadequate server capacity. After significant pushing by the Monitoring Team, and, admittedly, significant effort by the City and the NOPD, the Department upgraded its server technology in August 2015 and solved most of the problems in this area. The Monitoring Team’s most recent review of in-car cameras revealed that almost all were fully functional.
F. Supervisor Work Load
In our recently-published Special Report on NOPD Supervision, and at the associated public court hearing, the Monitoring Team criticized NOPD for overburdening sergeants with administrative work, which reduced the time they were able to spend actually supervising the officers under their command. While administrative work (e.g., reporting writing, time keeping, etc.) always has been and always will be a component of a sergeant’s work load, we pushed the Department to take a hard look at the tasks assigned to supervisors to ensure all were necessary. To NOPD’s credit, it now is in the process of doing exactly that.
In June, the Department engaged an outside consulting firm to help it catalog, review, and evaluate the tasks given to field supervisors. One immediate result of NOPD’s focus in this area already has been implemented. In August, NOPD initiated a change to its timekeeping/payroll system to reduce the time supervisors have to sit in front of a computer doing administrative work. (Prior to this change, supervisors actually must type work schedules into two different systems, wasting significant time and effort.)
Another significant technology enhancement that will insure to the benefit of supervisors (and officers) is the implementation of new software that will ensure camera videos are “tagged” with date, location, and event information directly from the Department’s CAD system. By automating this process rather than relying on officers to retype the information into a different system after their shifts, supervisors will have more accurate, more timely, and more useful information as they review officer BWC recordings.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 73 of 135
Page 73 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVII. SIGNAL CODE REVIEW
Paragraph 206 of the Consent Decree provides that during the first year of the Consent Decree, “neither patrol officers nor detectives shall code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category without the express written approval of the Investigative Services Bureau Special Victim Section Commander and the Investigative Services Bureau Criminal Investigations Division Commander.” The Consent Decree goes on to command that, following the first year, “patrol officers shall not code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non-criminal category,” and that “any decision by a detective to do so shall receive close secondary review and shall be approved in writing by an immediate Sex Crimes unit supervisor and the Division commander.”
To assess the Department’s compliance with paragraph 206, and as a follow-up to the New Orleans OIG’s November 2014 Special Victims Unit report,29 the Monitoring Team randomly selected 53 items coded by NOPD as a “Signal 21.” (“Signal 21” is NOPD’s code for a miscellaneous complaint.) The selected items covered the period October 2014 – December 2014. We then reviewed the available incident reports, BWC recordings, Field Interview Cards, and other documentation associated with those 53 items to evaluate whether (a) they were properly coded as a Signal 21, (b) NOPD appropriately investigated any underlying sex crime, and (c) the involved officer’s BWC was turned on and operated in a compliant manner.
Of the 53 Signal 21s reviewed, we found only 34% of them had sufficient information to evaluate the correctness of the signal and the completeness of the followthrough by NOPD. Of these, we determined that all were properly coded as a Signal 21 and all were investigated as appropriate. 66% of cases reviewed, however, required additional information from NOPD in order to validate the correctness of the signal and/or the follow-up. Importantly, these 35 items (i.e., 66%) may have been properly coded and may have been properly investigated. Our findings at this point go only to the availability of the information necessary to reach a conclusion. The Monitoring Team presented the NOPD Compliance Bureau with a list of those 35 cases for further review.
The Monitoring Team will report the results of NOPD’s follow-up on these 35 cases in a future report. In the meantime, however, we recommend NOPD take steps to ensure items coded as a Signal 21 include some additional comments in the communications

29

On November 12, 2014, the New Orleans Office of Inspector General released the results of an

inquiry into sex crime investigations by five detectives in the Special Victims Section of the New

Orleans Police Department. The OIG Investigations Division reviewed 90 randomly selected NOPD

sex crime related reports, and found significant concerns with 23 reports from five detectives.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 74 of 135 Page 74 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
notations so that supervisors are able to see the nature of the call and the propriety of the signal.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 75 of 135
Page 75 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. Agreement Implementation And Enforcement (Cd 444 – 492)
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) As in the past, the Monitoring Team and IPM communicated frequently during this quarter and coordinated their efforts to the extent practicable. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it receives from the IPM.
B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.”
The NOPD Compliance Bureau now has been fully staffed since July 2014, and the Monitoring Team continues to be pleased by the Unit’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process; and recognizes the full cooperation it continues to receive from the Unit. Indeed, we confidently can say that much of the Department’s recent progress has been due, in part at least, to the efforts or the Compliance Bureau.
On July 20, 2015, NOPD changed management of the Compliance Bureau. The new Bureau director, Deputy Chief Timothy Averill comes to the Department from the Louisiana Supreme Court, where he served as the Judicial Administrator. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with Deputy Chief Averill, and thanks outgoing Deputy Chief Ginsberg for his outstanding leadership setting up and staffing a top-notch Compliance Bureau.
C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD did fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting quarter.
The Monitoring Team also continues to receive the full cooperation of and continues to work closely with the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). While the OIG’s activities do not fall within our monitoring responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the OIG has kept us apprised of its audit plans and investigators as they relate to the NOPD.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 76 of 135 Page 76 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Finally, the Monitoring Team also has been impressed with the close working relationship between NOPD’s current domestic violence detectives and the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, and the level of cooperation we continue to receive from the DA’s office.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 77 of 135
Page 77 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. Conclusion
The past quarter was one of significant progress in several areas of the Consent Decree, but ongoing frustration in some other areas. All in all, however, the Monitoring Team has been encouraged in 2015 by the Department’s energy, thoughtfulness, and commitment toward the Consent Decree, and toward improving the Department generally. As we noted in the introduction to this Report, while we continue to remain frustrated by the pace of change, we have noticed over the past 12 months an encouraging change in the attitude of NOPD leadership. This change has enabled NOPD to make new strides toward compliance, and also has enabled the Monitoring Team to move forward with certain critical monitoring/assessment activities that were not practical in the first year of monitoring.
The two most important of these activities are (1) developing objectively verifiable measurements to evaluate full and effective compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree and (2) initiating the outcome measurements required by the Consent Decree. Paragraph 491 of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD will emerge from the Consent Decree – and, accordingly, the oversight of the Monitoring Team and the federal district court – when it has been in “full and effective” compliance with the Consent Decree for two years. “Full and effective compliance” is defined as “sustained compliance with all material requirements” of the Consent Decree, or “sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing” as demonstrated by the Consent Decree’s “outcome measurements.” Consequently, both of these activities are critically important because they serve as the gatekeepers to termination of the Consent Decree.
To understand the importance of developing objectively measurable compliance standards, one first must understand the Consent Decree often speaks in general terms. For example, the Consent Decree requires NOPD supervisors to provide “close and effective” supervision to officers. But without a clear understanding of what constitutes “close and effective” supervision, it will be difficult for NOPD to demonstrate “sustained” compliance. To remedy this, the Monitoring Team has nearly completed a detailed effort to ensure each paragraph of the Consent Decree is objectively measurable and that the standards by which each paragraph will be measured are well known to NOPD.
Concurrent with our work on the objective compliance measurements, the Monitoring Team also has been working closely with the NOPD Compliance Bureau to identify the data necessary to conduct the outcome measurements required by the Consent Decree. Much of the data necessary to perform this critical evaluation, however, still is not maintained by NOPD. But to the Department’s credit, it has been working hard to remedy such gaps. We are confident we will be able to begin conducting the outcome measurements in the near future.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 78 of 135 Page 78 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The new progress in the forgoing areas, however, and the ongoing progress in the other areas outlined in this Report should not be read to suggest that all yet is well. The Department still has a ways to go in several areas, including the Academy, supervision, and hiring, among others. But real progress is being made.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 79 of 135 Page 79 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XX. Appendices

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 80 of 135
Page 80 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 1 -- Vehicle Pursuit Data

Table 9.

Frequency of pursuits by month, January 2014 – February 2015

Month

2014

2015

N

%

N

%

January

2

3.5

9 90.0

February

4

7.0

1 10.0

March

5

8.8

--

--

April

4

7.0

--

--

May

4

7.0

--

--

June

9 15.8

--

--

July

6 10.5

--

--

August

5

8.8

--

--

September

7 12.3

--

--

October

4

7.0

--

--

November

4

7.0

--

--

December

3

5.3

--

--

Total

57 100.0 10 100.0

Note: % Columns may not add to exactly 100 due to rounding.

Total

N

%

11 16.4

5

7.4

5

7.4

4

6.0

4

6.0

9

13.4

6

9.0

5

7.4

7

10.4

4

6.0

4

6.0

3

4.5

67 100.0

Table 10. Frequency of pursuits by day of week, January 2014 – February 2015

Day of week

2014

2015

N

%

N

%

Monday

7

12.3

1

10.0

Tuesday

12

21.1

0

0.0

Wednesday

7

12.3

0

0.0

Thursday

9

15.8

4

40.0

Friday

9

15.8

2

20.0

Saturday

7

12.3

0

0.0

Sunday

6

10.5

3

30.0

Total

57 100.0

10 100.0

Note: % Columns may not add to exactly 100 due to rounding.

Total

N

%

8

11.9

12 17.9

7

10.4

13 19.4

11 16.4

7

10.4

9

13.4

67 100.0

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 81 of 135
Page 81 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 11. Violation prompting pursuit, January 2014 – February 2015

Violation

2014

2015

N

%

N

%

DWI

1

1.8 0

0.0

Felony

16 28.6 6 60.0

Hit and run

0

0.0

1 10.0

Medical

1

1.8 0

0.0

Misdemeanor

2

3.6 0

0.0

Possible auto theft 1

1.8 0

0.0

Stolen vehicle

11 19.6 1 10.0

Switched plate

1

1.8 0

0.0

Traffic

23 41.1 2 20.0

Total

56 100.0 10 100.0

Note: % Columns may not add to exactly 100 due to rounding.

Total

N

%

1

1.5

20 30.3

1

1.5

1

1.5

2

3.0

1

1.5

12 18.2

1

1.5

25 37.9

66 100.0

Table 12.

Number of injured officers, January 2014 – February 2015

Injuries 0 1 2 Total

2014 53 1 1 55

2015 10 0 0 10

Total 63 1 1 65

Table 13.

Number of injured suspects, January 2014 – February 2015

Injuries 0 1 Total

2014 54 1 55

2015 10 0 10

Total 64 1 65

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 82 of 135
Page 82 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 14. Number of injured bystanders or private vehicles, January 2014 – February 2015

Injuries 0 1 Total

2014 54 1 55

2015 9 1 10

Total 63 2 65

Table 15. 2015

Property damage stemming from pursuits, January 2014 – February

Damage

2014

2015

N

%

N

%

None

41

74.5

5

50.0

Light

11

20.0

2

20.0

Medium

2

3.6

1

10.0

Heavy

1

1.8

1

10.0

Unknown

0

0.0

1

10.0

Total

55 100.0

10 100.0

Note: % Columns may not add to exactly 100 due to rounding.

Total

N

%

46

70.8

13

20.0

3

4.6

2

3.0

1

1.5

65 100.0

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 83 of 135
Page 83 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 16. Pursuit outcomes, January 2014 – February 2015

Outcome

2014

N %

NOPD terminates pursuit

6 11.8

NOPD unit disabled

1

2.0

Pursued vehicle escapes

3

5.9

Pursued vehicle in collision

4

7.8

Pursued vehicle spins out

3

5.9

Pursued vehicle stops

6 11.8

Pursued vehicle stops, driver arrested

4

7.8

Pursued vehicle stops, driver flees on foot

18 35.3

Pursued vehicle stops, driver flees on foot, is

3

5.9

arrested

Pursued vehicle stops, driver flees on foot,

2

3.9

escapes

Pursuit ended by another agency

1

2.0

Total

51 100.0

Note: % Columns may not add to exactly 100 due to rounding.

2015

N %

3 30.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2 20.0

0

0.0

1 10.0

0

0.0

4 40.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

10 100.0

Total

N %

9 14.8

1

1.6

3

4.9

6

9.8

3

4.9

7 11.5

4

6.6

22 36.1

3

4.9

2

3.3

1

1.6

61 100.0

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 84 of 135 Page 84 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix 2 Community Survey: Demographic Breakdown Analysis

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 85 of 135
Page 85 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Community survey respondent demographic characteristics

N

Gender

Male

270

Female

264

Age

18-24

28

25-34

133

35-44

112

45-54

102

55-64

86

65+

71

Race/ethnicity

Black

277

White

208

Asian

7

Hispanic

14

Other

20

Education

Grade school

9

Grade 9 to 11

51

High school

135

Some college

122

College degree

139

Graduate/professional degree

70

Marital status

Single

222

Married

184

Divorced

64

Widowed

32

Partnered

27

Rent or own home

Own

260

Rent

243

Born in New Orleans

Yes

345

No

182

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

%
49.2% 48.1%
5.1% 24.2% 20.4% 18.6% 15.7% 12.9%
50.5% 37.9% 1.3% 2.6% 3.6%
1.6% 9.3% 24.6% 22.2% 25.3% 12.8%
40.4% 33.5% 11.7% 5.8% 4.9%
47.4% 44.3%
62.8% 33.2%

- Table 1 was provided in the initial community survey analysis submitted to the OCDM team in
February 2015. The table is provided again in this report simply for reference.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 86 of 135 Page 86 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 1 Community Survey Results: Breakdown across Gender

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 87 of 135
Page 87 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across gender

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

Male 2.57

Female 2.76*

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.63

2.76

the correct police procedure.

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

2.62

2.71

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.11

the police officer.

3.27**

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.59

2.86**

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.61

2.87**

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

2.63

2.82*

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.53

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

2.78*

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.40

express my view. 1

2.72**

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.47

2.68†

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.45

police officer. 1

2.70*

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience

2.48

2.63

with the police. 1

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 88 of 135
Page 88 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across gender
1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers follow the law.
2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police officers.
4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.
5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD.
6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department has become a better police department.
7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.

Male 2.48 2.14 2.69 3.20 2.46
2.28 2.27

Female 2.50 2.29* 2.78 3.13 2.38
2.31 2.29

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely manner.

2.02

2.03

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood now

2.41

2.37

has more confidence in the NOPD.

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.38

2.38

solved by the police.

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.39

2.36

impact on crime in New Orleans.

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in the

1.84

1.86

New Orleans Police Department.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 89 of 135
Page 89 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across gender

Male

Female

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.44

2.48

honest.

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.12

2.28

police departments in terms of integrity.

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.38

2.43

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.39

2.42

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased

2.25

2.31

against minorities.

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat me

2.45

2.54

fairly.

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.31

2.35

very well.

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to win

2.90

2.81

the confidence of the public to be effective.

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.25

2.28

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.32

2.42

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.31

2.37

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.67

2.75

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.25

3.27

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.48

2.50

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.30

2.42

legitimate reasons.

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.61

2.61

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that is

2.54

2.55

not degrading when interacting with citizens.

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people as

2.34

2.30

a form of harassment.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 90 of 135
Page 90 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across gender

Male

Female

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.86

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.52

is suspected of having committed a crime.

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.75

aware of a crime.

3.00* 2.63 2.84

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 91 of 135
Page 91 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across gender

Male

Female

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their actions.

3.54

3.40**

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.45

3.33*

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when dealing

3.50

3.42

with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.60

3.53

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-being of

3.50

3.44

ordinary citizens.

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.31

2.32

Orleans are good.

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers have

2.39

2.45

ready access to language interpretation services to

help communicate with those who does [sic] not

speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking officers

2.23

2.22

who can interact with Spanish speaking suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 92 of 135
Page 92 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across gender

Male

Female

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the African

2.04

American community fairly.

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.23

community fairly.

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.52

Vietnamese community fairly.

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian,

2.31

Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly.

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.87

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial profiling.

2.13

2.17† 2.34 2.52 2.31 2.85 2.25†

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects to

2.06

2.12

be harassed by the NOPD.

8. The African American community in New Orleans does not

2.05

2.10

believe the NOPD is credible.

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

2.11

2.08

toward the African American community.

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.37

2.31

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.16

2.20

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 93 of 135 Page 93 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 2 Community Survey Results:
Breakdown across Age
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 94 of 135
Page 94 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across age

18 to 34

35 and older

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.44

2.77**

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.56

the correct police procedure.

2.75†

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

2.48

2.75*

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.20

3.17

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.50

2.83**

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.59

2.80*

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

2.54

2.80*

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.49

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

2.73*

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.33

express my view. 1

2.64*

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.31

2.68**

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.38

police officer. 1

2.64*

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience

2.32

with the police. 1

2.66**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 95 of 135
Page 95 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across age
1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers follow the law.
2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police officers.
4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.
5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD.
6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department has become a better police department.
7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.

18 to 34 2.38 2.05 2.68 3.25 2.19
2.23 2.14

35 and older 2.54* 2.28** 2.77 3.13† 2.52**
2.32 2.34**

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely manner.

1.81

2.12**

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood now

2.26

has more confidence in the NOPD.

2.45*

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.25

solved by the police.

2.44*

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.31

2.40

impact on crime in New Orleans.

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in the

1.73

New Orleans Police Department.

1.90*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 96 of 135
Page 96 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across age

18 to 34

35 and older

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.31

honest.

2.53**

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.08

police departments in terms of integrity.

2.26*

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.25

2.48**

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.28

2.47*

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased

2.19

against minorities.

2.32†

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat me

2.37

fairly.

2.56*

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.16

very well.

2.40**

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to win

2.92

2.82

the confidence of the public to be effective.

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.18

2.30

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.17

2.46**

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.21

2.40*

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.52

2.79**

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.20

3.29

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.34

2.56**

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.17

legitimate reasons.

2.45**

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.47

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

2.67**

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that is

2.47

2.57

not degrading when interacting with citizens.

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people as

2.15

a form of harassment.

2.39**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 97 of 135
Page 97 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across age

18 to 34

35 and older

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.79

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.46

is suspected of having committed a crime.

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.72

aware of a crime.

2.99** 2.63* 2.83

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 98 of 135
Page 98 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across age

18 to 34

35 and older

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their actions.

3.65

3.39**

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.58

3.31**

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when dealing

3.64

with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.72

3.38** 3.50**

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-being of

3.62

ordinary citizens.

3.41**

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.34

2.30

Orleans are good.

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers have

2.43

2.42

ready access to language interpretation services to

help communicate with those who does [sic] not

speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking officers

2.28

2.19

who can interact with Spanish speaking suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 99 of 135
Page 99 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across age

18 to 34

35 and older

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the African

1.98

American community fairly.

2.16*

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.16

community fairly.

2.34*

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly.

2.54

2.51

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian,

2.21

Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly.

2.35†

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.95

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

2.82†

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial profiling.

2.04

2.26*

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects to

1.84

be harassed by the NOPD.

2.20*

8. The African American community in New Orleans does not

1.79

believe the NOPD is credible.

2.21*

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

1.82

toward the African American community.

2.22*

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.15

2.43*

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.01

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

2.26*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 100 of 135 Page 100 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 3 Community Survey Results:
Breakdown across Race
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 101 of 135
Page 101 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across race

Racial minority

White

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.55

2.82**

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.49

the correct police procedure.

2.94**

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

2.50

2.88**

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.20

3.17

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.55

2.97**

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.60

2.92**

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

2.56

2.93**

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.52

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

2.83**

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.43

express my view. 1

2.69*

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.36

2.85**

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.40

police officer. 1

2.79**

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience

2.40

with the police. 1

2.77**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 102 of 135
Page 102 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across race
1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers follow the law.
2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police officers.
4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.
5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD.
6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department has become a better police department.
7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.

Racial minority 2.35 2.21 2.68 3.23 2.39
2.15 2.15

White 2.71** 2.23 2.85* 3.04** 2.46
2.53** 2.48**

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely manner.

1.91

2.22**

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood now

2.24

has more confidence in the NOPD.

2.62**

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.38

2.38

solved by the police.

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.26

impact on crime in New Orleans.

2.56**

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in the

1.83

1.88

New Orleans Police Department.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 103 of 135
Page 103 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across race

Racial minority

White

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.28

honest.

2.74*

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.17

2.24

police departments in terms of integrity.

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.28

2.59*

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.27

2.61*

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased

2.26

2.32

against minorities.

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat me

2.29

fairly.

2.82**

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.24

very well.

2.46**

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to win

2.80

the confidence of the public to be effective.

2.94†

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.13

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

2.49**

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.19

2.65**

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.19

2.57**

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.62

2.84**

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.23

3.32

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.35

2.71**

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.28

legitimate reasons.

2.49**

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.50

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

2.78**

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that is

2.44

not degrading when interacting with citizens.

2.70**

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people as

2.13

a form of harassment.

2.64**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 104 of 135
Page 104 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across race

Racial minority

White

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.75

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.38

is suspected of having committed a crime.

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.63

aware of a crime.

3.21** 2.89** 3.08**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 105 of 135
Page 105 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across race

Racial minority

White

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their actions.

3.42

3.54*

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.32

3.51**

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when dealing

3.41

with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.51

3.55** 3.65**

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-being of

3.41

ordinary citizens.

3.56**

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.37

Orleans are good.

2.23*

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers have

2.40

2.46

ready access to language interpretation services to

help communicate with those who does [sic] not

speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking officers

2.25

2.19

who can interact with Spanish speaking suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 106 of 135
Page 106 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across race

Racial minority

White

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the African

1.98

American community fairly.

2.30**

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.22

community fairly.

2.37*

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly.

2.49

2.55

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian,

2.23

Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly.

2.41**

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.84

2.88

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial profiling.

2.15

2.26

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects to

2.03

be harassed by the NOPD.

2.19*

8. The African American community in New Orleans does not

2.06

2.11

believe the NOPD is credible.

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

1.96

toward the African American community.

2.32**

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.29

2.42†

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.14

2.26

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 107 of 135 Page 107 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 4 Community Survey Results: Breakdown across Education
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 108 of 135
Page 108 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across education

Less than college degree

College degree or higher

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.53

2.84**

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.53

the correct police procedure.

2.90**

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer

2.49

2.90**

behaved.

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.19

3.18

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.54

2.96**

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.56

2.97**

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with

2.56

me.

2.94**

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.53

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

2.88**

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.44

express my view. 1

2.73*

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.43

2.81**

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.46

police officer. 1

2.76*

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience with the police. 1

2.43

2.76**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 109 of 135
Page 109 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across education

Less than college degree

College degree or higher

1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers

2.40

follow the law.

2.64**

2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police

2.23

2.18

Department is low.

3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police

2.68

officers.

2.84*

4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter

3.18

3.14

than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.

5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans

2.39

2.46

Police Department in the past do not reflect the current

practices of the NOPD.

6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police

2.18

Department has become a better police department.

2.48**

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their

2.22

job.

2.38*

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely

1.98

2.10

manner.

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood

2.31

now has more confidence in the NOPD.

2.52**

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.37

2.39

solved by the police.

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.28

impact on crime in New Orleans.

2.52**

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in

1.86

1.83

the New Orleans Police Department.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 110 of 135
Page 110 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across education

Less than college degree

College degree or higher

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.36

honest.

2.62**

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.21

2.20

police departments in terms of integrity.

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.33

2.51**

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.33

2.52**

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or

2.28

2.29

biased against minorities.

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat

2.38

me fairly.

2.67**

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.26

very well.

2.42*

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to

2.89

2.80

win the confidence of the public to be effective.

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.24

2.31

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.29

2.50**

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.26

2.47**

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.67

2.75

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.24

3.28

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.41

2.62**

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.37

2.34

legitimate reasons.

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.55

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

2.70*

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that

2.49

is not degrading when interacting with citizens.

2.62*

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people

2.17

as a form of harassment.

2.57**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 111 of 135
Page 111 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across education

Less than college degree

College degree or higher

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.79

to the NOPD.

3.14**

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.45

is suspected of having committed a crime.

2.78**

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.62

aware of a crime.

3.08**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 112 of 135
Page 112 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across education

Less than college degree College degree or higher

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their

3.44

3.51

actions.

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.34

3.47*

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when

3.45

dealing with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.53

3.49 3.62†

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-

3.42

being of ordinary citizens.

3.55*

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.39

Orleans are good.

2.20**

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers

2.45

2.39

have ready access to language interpretation

services to help communicate with those who

does [sic] not speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking

2.26

2.18

officers who can interact with Spanish speaking

suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 113 of 135
Page 113 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across education

Less than college degree College degree or higher

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.04

African American community fairly.

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.29

community fairly.

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.55

Vietnamese community fairly.

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.28

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

community fairly.

2.20* 2.27 2.48 2.34

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.86

2.85

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial

2.17

2.22

profiling.

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects

2.05

to be harassed by the NOPD.

8. The African American community in New Orleans does

2.05

not believe the NOPD is credible.

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

2.00

toward the African American community.

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.30

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

2.15 2.13 2.23** 2.40

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.09

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

2.33**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 114 of 135 Page 114 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 5 Community Survey Results: Breakdown across Marital Status
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 115 of 135
Page 115 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across marital status

Married2

Single3

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.74

2.61

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.79

the correct police procedure.

2.62†

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer

2.81

2.55**

behaved.

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.19

3.18

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.87

2.62*

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.87

2.64*

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with

2.89

me.

2.60**

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.77

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

2.57†

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.77

express my view. 1

2.40**

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.74

2.44**

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.74

police officer. 1

2.45*

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience with the police. 1

2.67

2.47†

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” 2 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 3 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 116 of 135
Page 116 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across marital status

Married1

Single2

1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers

2.54

2.46

follow the law.

2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police

2.13

Department is low.

2.27†

3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police

2.75

2.73

officers.

4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter

3.14

3.17

than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.

5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans

2.52

Police Department in the past do not reflect the current

practices of the NOPD.

2.36*

6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police

2.38

Department has become a better police department.

2.24†

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their

2.33

2.25

job.

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely

2.06

2.00

manner.

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood

2.46

now has more confidence in the NOPD.

2.34†

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.42

2.35

solved by the police.

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.42

2.34

impact on crime in New Orleans.

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in

1.92

the New Orleans Police Department.

1.80†

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). 1 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 2 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 117 of 135
Page 117 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across marital status

Married1

Single2

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.56

honest.

2.39*

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.29

police departments in terms of integrity.

2.14*

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.53

2.32**

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.50

2.34*

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or

2.30

2.27

biased against minorities.

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat

2.62

me fairly.

2.42**

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.43

very well.

2.26*

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to

2.78

win the confidence of the public to be effective.

2.91†

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.36

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

2.21*

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.49

2.29*

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.43

2.28*

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.77

2.67

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.26

3.26

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.59

2.43*

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.39

2.35

legitimate reasons.

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.64

2.59

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that

2.57

2.53

is not degrading when interacting with citizens.

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people

2.46

as a form of harassment.

2.23**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). 1 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 2 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 118 of 135
Page 118 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across marital status

Married1

Single2

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.92

2.94

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.67

is suspected of having committed a crime.

2.53*

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.90

aware of a crime.

2.73*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). 1 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 2 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 119 of 135
Page 119 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across marital status

Married1

Single2

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their

3.42

3.50

actions.

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.29

3.46**

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when

3.39

dealing with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.52

3.51* 3.59

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-

3.43

3.50

being of ordinary citizens.

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.31

2.32

Orleans are good.

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers

2.45

2.40

have ready access to language interpretation

services to help communicate with those who

does [sic] not speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking

2.19

2.23

officers who can interact with Spanish speaking

suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 2 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 120 of 135
Page 120 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across marital status

Married1

Single2

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.19

African American community fairly.

2.05*

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.34

2.25

community fairly.

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.51

2.52

Vietnamese community fairly.

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.31

2.30

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

community fairly.

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.75

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

2.93**

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial

2.26

2.14

profiling.

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects

2.16

2.04

to be harassed by the NOPD.

8. The African American community in New Orleans does

2.15

not believe the NOPD is credible.

2.03†

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

2.21

toward the African American community.

2.02**

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.42

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

2.29†

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.29

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

2.10*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). 1 Includes those who are married or reported having a partner. 2 Includes those who reported being single, divorced, or widowed. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 121 of 135 Page 121 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 6 Community Survey Results: Breakdown across Home Ownership Status
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 122 of 135
Page 122 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.79

2.57*

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.81

the correct police procedure.

2.62*

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer

2.81

behaved.

2.54*

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.15

3.21

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.85

2.63*

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.87

2.64*

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with

2.85

me.

2.62*

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.76

2.60

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.66

express my view. 1

2.44†

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.72

2.45*

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.70

police officer. 1

2.46*

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience with the police. 1

2.71

2.44*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 123 of 135
Page 123 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers

2.57

follow the law.

2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police

2.26

Department is low.

3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police

2.77

officers.

4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter

3.12

than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.

2.42* 2.19 2.70 3.20

5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans

2.52

Police Department in the past do not reflect the current

practices of the NOPD.

2.31**

6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police

2.38

Department has become a better police department.

2.22*

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their

2.39

job.

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely

2.13

manner.

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood

2.48

now has more confidence in the NOPD.

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.44

solved by the police.

2.19** 1.95* 2.30** 2.36

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.42

2.32

impact on crime in New Orleans.

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in

1.91

the New Orleans Police Department.

1.80†

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 124 of 135
Page 124 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.61

honest.

2.33**

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.26

2.16

police departments in terms of integrity.

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.51

2.32**

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.50

2.30**

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or

2.36

biased against minorities.

2.22†

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat

2.62

me fairly.

2.38**

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.41

very well.

2.26*

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to

2.84

2.85

win the confidence of the public to be effective.

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.35

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

2.20*

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.51

2.23**

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.48

2.21**

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.77

2.65

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.25

3.27

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.56

2.42*

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.46

legitimate reasons.

2.26**

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.63

2.58

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that

2.56

2.53

is not degrading when interacting with citizens.

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people

2.44

as a form of harassment.

2.20**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 125 of 135
Page 125 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

3.02

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.69

is suspected of having committed a crime.

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.90

aware of a crime.

2.86* 2.46** 2.71**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 126 of 135
Page 126 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their

3.38

actions.

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.32

3.55** 3.45*

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when

3.40

dealing with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.50

3.52* 3.65**

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-

3.41

being of ordinary citizens.

3.55*

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.32

2.28

Orleans are good.

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers

2.44

2.39

have ready access to language interpretation

services to help communicate with those who

does [sic] not speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking

2.24

2.20

officers who can interact with Spanish speaking

suspects.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 127 of 135
Page 127 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across home ownership status

Home owner

Renter

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.19

African American community fairly.

2.04*

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.30

2.28

community fairly.

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.47

2.55

Vietnamese community fairly.

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.35

2.28

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

community fairly.

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.82

2.88

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial

2.29

profiling.

2.10**

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects

2.15

to be harassed by the NOPD.

2.00*

8. The African American community in New Orleans does

2.11

not believe the NOPD is credible.

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

2.19

toward the African American community.

2.00† 2.00*

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.44

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

2.23**

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.34

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

2.06**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 128 of 135 Page 128 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SECTION 7 Community Survey Results: Breakdown across Born in New Orleans (Yes or No)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 129 of 135
Page 129 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. I felt that the police officer was trustworthy.

2.61

2.74

2. I had confidence the police officer was following

2.65

2.76

the correct police procedure.

3. I was satisfied with how the police officer

2.63

2.70

behaved.

4. I followed the specific instructions given to me by

3.20

3.17

the police officer.

5. The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.68

2.79

6. The police officer treated me with respect.

2.71

2.77

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with

2.68

2.79

me.

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer

2.62

2.70

adequately explained the reasons why. 1

9. The police officer gave me the opportunity to

2.51

2.60

express my view. 1

10. Overall, the police officer did a good job. 1

2.51

2.65

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the

2.56

2.57

police officer. 1

12. I was satisfied with the outcome of my experience with the police. 1

2.49

2.64

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. 1 Question was only asked to those respondents that indicated they had been “stopped and questioned.” † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 130 of 135
Page 130 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. While conducting their police duties, NOPD officers

2.43

follow the law.

2. The level of corruption in the New Orleans Police

2.23

Department is low.

3. I do not fear interacting with New Orleans police

2.73

officers.

4. There is more police presence in the French Quarter

3.20

than in other areas of the City of New Orleans.

2.60** 2.19 2.75 3.11

5. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans

2.42

2.40

Police Department in the past do not reflect the current

practices of the NOPD.

6. Since Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police

2.22

Department has become a better police department.

2.45**

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their

2.24

2.35

job.

8. NOPD officers respond, when called, in a timely

1.99

2.09

manner.

9. When compared to 3 years ago, my neighborhood

2.35

2.45

now has more confidence in the NOPD.

10. Most crimes that take place in New Orleans are not

2.41

2.33

solved by the police.

11. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little

2.35

2.42

impact on crime in New Orleans.

12. There is a great need for more professionalization in

1.88

1.79

the New Orleans Police Department.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 131 of 135
Page 131 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.3. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. Police officers in New Orleans are, for the most part,

2.39

honest.

2.60**

2. Police officers in New Orleans are superior to other

2.22

2.16

police departments in terms of integrity.

3. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.36

2.49†

4. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.37

2.47

5. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or

2.29

2.24

biased against minorities.

6. I can count on New Orleans police officers to treat

2.44

me fairly.

2.61*

7. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime

2.35

2.27

very well.

8. Police officers in New Orleans know they have to

2.84

2.88

win the confidence of the public to be effective.

9. Police officers in New Orleans treat tourists in the

2.25

2.29

same manner they treat citizens of New Orleans.

10. I trust the NOPD.

2.31

2.46†

11. I have confidence in the NOPD.

2.29

2.43†

12. I respect the NOPD.

2.71

2.69

13. I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.

3.28

3.23

14. The NOPD tries to be fair when making decisions.

2.46

2.55

15. Generally, NOPD officers stop and frisk people for

2.38

2.33

legitimate reasons.

16. During routine encounters with members of the

2.56

public, NOPD officers use appropriate language.

2.71*

17. For the most part, NOPD officers use language that

2.49

is not degrading when interacting with citizens.

2.63*

18. Police officers in New Orleans stop and frisk people

2.25

as a form of harassment.

2.44**

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 132 of 135
Page 132 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity

2.90

to the NOPD.

2. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone who

2.49

is suspected of having committed a crime.

3. I would not call the NOPD if I witnessed or became

2.72

aware of a crime.

3.01 2.75* 2.96*

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 133 of 135
Page 133 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.5. Citizens’ views regarding how they believe NOPD officers should behave—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. The NOPD should be accountable for their

3.42

actions.

2. The NOPD should keep the public informed.

3.34

3.55* 3.50**

3. The NOPD should be open and honest when

3.43

dealing with the public.

4. The NOPD should treat people with respect.

3.54

3.54* 3.61

5. The NOPD should be interested in the well-

3.42

being of ordinary citizens.

3.56**

6. Working conditions for police officers in New

2.35

2.24

Orleans are good.

7. To the best of my knowledge, NOPD officers

2.44

2.39

have ready access to language interpretation

services to help communicate with those who

does [sic] not speak English.

8. The NOPD has enough Spanish speaking

2.26

officers who can interact with Spanish speaking

suspects.

2.14†

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 134 of 135
Page 134 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7.6. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups—Across born in New Orleans

Yes

No

1. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.07

2.17

African American community fairly.

2. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino

2.31

2.24

community fairly.

3. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.55

2.48

Vietnamese community fairly.

4. New Orleans police officers treat members of the

2.28

2.35

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

community fairly.

5. Many victims in New Orleans Latino community fear

2.78

reporting a crime due to fear of deportation.

3.01**

6. New Orleans police officers often engage in racial

2.18

2.21

profiling.

7. The African American community in New Orleans expects

2.10

2.07

to be harassed by the NOPD.

8. The African American community in New Orleans does

2.09

2.06

not believe the NOPD is credible.

9. There is a great deal of unfairness and bias by the NOPD

2.06

2.18

toward the African American community.

10. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

2.37

2.30

community does not have confidence in the NOPD.

11. During encounters between the NOPD and the homeless

2.19

2.15

population in New Orleans, the homeless are often treated

poorly by the NOPD.

Note: Entries are the mean score (average) on each item within the respective demographic subgroup. All survey questions range in values from 1 to 4. Thus, higher scores indicate more agreement to the statement. Italicized questions are coded in the opposite direction as all other questions (i.e., higher scores indicate more disagreement with the statement). † p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 453-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 135 of 135
Page 135 of 135 October 2, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix 3 N.O.P.D. EDUCATION AND TRAINING DIVISION

Consent Decree Performance Metrics

Lesson Plan Measures – Week ending 8/28/15

Milestone status % of Lesson Plans in each major program area:

RECRUIT IN-SERVICE FTO NEW SUPV/DET TOTAL LP’s

TOTAL
123 12 8 21
164

1st DRAFT DUE
29 (24%) 1 (8%)
4 (50%) 9 (43%) 43 (26%)

IN REVIEW
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

FINAL DUE
59 (48%) 6 (50%) 2 (25%) 2 (9%)
69 (42%)

COMPLIANCE
35 (28%) 5 (42%) 2 (25%)
10 (48%) 52 (32%)

Milestone status % of Lesson Plans specific to Consent Decree mandate:

CD Specific

TOTAL 1st DRAFT IN REVIEW FINAL DUE COMPLIANCE

DUE

59 12 (20%)

0 (0%) 24 (41%)

23 (39%)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 100
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2015 Issued February 26, 2016
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 100
Page 2 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
February 26, 2016

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS PERIOD
 The Monitoring Team continued to review policies, procedures, and training. We also performed a review of NOPD’s compliance with its domestic violence and sex crimes investigation obligations. In addition, the Monitoring Team conducted assessments of Body Worn Camera usage, uses of force, use of force record keeping, custodial interrogations, and, importantly, the Academy. We also worked with NOPD and the DOJ to support the development of a new policy promoting the prompt, voluntary public release of critical incident BWC videos.
WHAT WE FOUND
 With the support of the DOJ and the Monitoring Team, NOPD developed an excellent policy promoting the voluntary public release of critical incident BWC video recordings.
 NOPD drafted several excellent new policies, which were approved by the Monitoring Team and the DOJ.
 The Police Academy continues to need the close attention of NOPD management. While recent progress has been made, during this reporting period the Monitoring Team identified significant ongoing weaknesses.
 As widely reported in the press, some officers’ use of the “unfounded” code to classify calls that should have been classified as “gone on arrival” masked an important consequence of the Department’s poor response times.
 NOPD has many tools within its control to free up officers to (a) answer calls for service, (b) engage in community and problem-oriented policing, and (c) be more proactive in their communities. An officer-led working group identified many such tools, which the Monitoring Team has recommended be implemented as soon as possible.
 The Department’s plan to redeploy 94 officers to patrol duties from other functions within the Department reflects a thoughtful efforts to counteract the City’s crime and officer response time problems. The plan, however, has potential risks that must be dealt with before the redeployment is fully implemented.
NEXT PERIOD’S ACTIVITIES
 Audit BWC videos and Field Investigation Cards to assess NOPD’s compliance with its stop/search/arrest obligations.
 Continue to focus closely on all aspects of the Academy.  Audit NOPD’s Use of Force reports relating to “resisting arrest” and
“battery to a police officer” charges.  Continue reviewing the development of new policies and training.  Assess the impact of NOPD’s proposed redeployment of officers to patrol.  Finalize objective compliance measurements for each Consent Decree
paragraph and initiate CD-required “Outcome Assessments.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 100 Page 3 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 4 of 100 Page 4 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 5 of 100 Page 5 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ..............................................................................................................................3 II. Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................4 III. Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................8 V. Introduction to Quarterly Report ............................................................................................................10 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities...........................................................................................................15 VII. POLICIES...........................................................................................................................................................20 VIII. USE OF FORCE ...............................................................................................................................................22
A. Use of Force Generally...............................................................................................................................22 B. Use of Force Review Board ..................................................................................................................... 24 IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM...................................................................................................................27 X. Custodial Interrogations...............................................................................................................................28 XI. Photographic Lineups....................................................................................................................................30 XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS.......................................................................................................31 A. Special Victims Section Assessment ................................................................................................... 31
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................31 2. Overview .................................................................................................................................................31 3. Findings ...................................................................................................................................................32 4. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................41 B. Domestic Violence Unit Assessment...................................................................................................42 1. Methodology..........................................................................................................................................42 2. Findings ...................................................................................................................................................42 3. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................49 C. Domestic Violence Uniform Patrol Assessment............................................................................50 1. Methodology..........................................................................................................................................50 2. Overview Findings From The May 2015 Review.................................................................51
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 6 of 100
Page 6 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
3. Overview Findings From The August 2015 Review...........................................................52 4. Specific Aggregated Findings From May and August ........................................................53 5. Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................................................56 6. Primary Aggressor .............................................................................................................................57 7. Discouraging Victim...........................................................................................................................58 8. Preservation of Document Evidence .........................................................................................58 9. Professional Response......................................................................................................................59 D. Assessment of Unfounded Domestic Violence Calls ................................................................... 60 1. May Findings.........................................................................................................................................60 2. August Findings ...................................................................................................................................61 3. May/August Conclusions ................................................................................................................62 XIII. RECRUITMENT..............................................................................................................................................64 XIV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING............................................................................................66 A. Academy and Training Generally.........................................................................................................66 B. Community Oriented Policing Training ............................................................................................ 68 C. FTO Academy Training ............................................................................................................................. 69 1. Adult Learning and Problem Solving.........................................................................................69 2. Every Officer A Leader......................................................................................................................70 D. FTO Program..................................................................................................................................................71 1. Paragraph 275......................................................................................................................................71 2. Paragraph 276......................................................................................................................................71 3. Paragraph 277......................................................................................................................................71 4. Paragraph 278......................................................................................................................................72 5. Paragraph 279......................................................................................................................................72 6. Paragraph 280......................................................................................................................................73 7. Paragraph 281......................................................................................................................................73 8. Paragraph 282......................................................................................................................................74 E. In-Service Training...................................................................................................................................... 74 1. Paragraph 283......................................................................................................................................74 2. Paragraph 284......................................................................................................................................75
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 7 of 100 Page 7 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
3. Paragraph 285......................................................................................................................................75 XV. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT...............................................................................................76 XVI. Supervision .....................................................................................................................................................78
A. Supervision Generally................................................................................................................................ 78 B. Video and Audio Documentation of Police Activities ....................................................................79
1. BWC Deployment................................................................................................................................80 2. BWC Use ..................................................................................................................................................81 3. BWC Discipline.....................................................................................................................................82 XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION ..........85 XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.....................................................86 A. Outcome Assessments ............................................................................................................................... 86 B. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance .............................................................. 86 C. Comprehensive Re-Assessment............................................................................................................87 D. Coordination with IPM .............................................................................................................................. 87 E. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit..................................................................................87 XIX. Transparency and Oversight ..................................................................................................................89 XX. ATTACHMENTS.............................................................................................................................................91 ATTACHMENT 1.........................................................................................................................................................92 ATTACHMENT 2.........................................................................................................................................................94 ATTACHMENT 3.........................................................................................................................................................96 ATTACHMENT 4.........................................................................................................................................................98
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 8 of 100
Page 8 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DVU” “ECW” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 9 of 100
Page 9 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “RFP” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 10 of 100
Page 10 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

V. INTRODUCTION TO QUARTERLY REPORT
Law enforcement is one of the most highly regulated professions in the U.S. We use the term “profession” here intentionally. Police officers are part counselor, part lawyer, part doctor, part family therapist, part social worker, and part soldier. They are professionals in every sense of the word. And like all professions with great responsibility, its members are subject to great oversight. As consumers of the services these professionals provide, citizens1 should want it no other way.
The New Orleans Police Department has been operating under a Consent Decree since January 2013. While some within the City, the Department, and the community no doubt bemoan the imposition of the Consent Decree as a curse, and a small subset even blames the Consent Decree for everything from increased crime to slower response times to hiring difficulties, the truth is there is very little about the Consent Decree that a rational person fairly can take issue with.
At its core, the Consent Decree promotes six simple, unassailable principles:
 First, the Consent Decree recognizes the citizens of New Orleans and the members of the NOPD want and deserve clear, sensible policies that protect the rights of the citizens and help ensure officers return safely to their families at the end of each day.
 Second, the Consent Decree ensures officers receive effective training that actually teaches them how to do their jobs in a safe, effective, and non-biased manner.
 Third, the Consent Decree promotes fair, unbiased, constitutional, and respectful policing, which is the right of every individual regardless of race, gender identity, ethnicity, gender, citizenship, religion, immigration status, or sexual orientation.
 Fourth, the Consent Decree promotes close and effective supervision that ensures less experienced officers are supervised by more experienced officers for the protection of the citizens and, importantly, for the protection of the officers themselves. Good supervision ensures the lessons of the quality policies and effective training actually are finding their way onto the street.

1

This report uses the term “citizen” in the broadest possible sense to refer to all of the many communities

that make up New Orleans. We certainly do not mean to refer only to citizens of the United States.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 11 of 100 Page 11 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Fifth, the Consent Decree requires meaningful discipline that holds officers -- and, importantly, their managers -- accountable for their actions in a fair, transparent, and non-biased manner.
 And sixth, the Consent Decree demands transparency so the citizens of New Orleans and the members of the NOPD themselves can (a) understand what steps their police department is taking to protect them, (b) see what is working and what is not, and (c) make their own assessment of whether the Department is worthy of their trust.
While there certainly are a multitude of other terms and conditions among the 492 paragraphs of the Consent Decree, most are encompassed by these six core principles.
While past Monitoring Reports have discussed the Department’s slow progress during the first year of the Consent Decree, over the past year, and continuing into the most recent quarters, the Monitoring Team has seen real, substantive progress in many areas. For example:
 An effective and well-staffed Compliance Bureau has been in place for over a year now, and has played a lead role in moving NOPD toward compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree.
 New and revised policies are being rolled out that reflect forward-thinking concepts, national best practices, and a constitutional balance between public safety and civil rights.
 An impressive Crisis Intervention Team modeled after a highly successful program in Memphis is in place, and the first two classes of energetic CIT officers have graduated and are on the streets.
 An effective Force Investigation Team is in place and is conducting quality investigations of officer uses of force, as well as uses of force against officers.
 A robust body worn camera program is in place and, indeed, was implemented by NOPD on its own in advance of the Consent Decree.
 A fully operational and successful Office of Police Secondary Employment was stood up not long ago.
And there have been other successes as well.
In other areas, however, the Department’s progress has been frustratingly slow and continues to give the Monitoring Team cause for concern.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 12 of 100
Page 12 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 The Academy, for example, still needs significant attention. The curriculum, lesson plans, instructor evaluations, and even its 2016 master training plan all need work. But we are seeing some progress. Courses are being updated; instructors are about to be evaluated; lesson plans, where there remarkably weren’t any in the past, are being prepared and evaluated; thanks to the help of the NOLA business community, the Academy now is in a new location; and, most recently, a new Deputy Chief was installed to oversee the reformation of the Academy.
 The NOPD likewise needs to spend more time focusing on ensuring its officers receive close and effective supervision. While our prior reviews have demonstrated to us most supervisors want to provide the sort of supervision required by the Consent Decree, many do not do so. Some do not provide adequate supervision because they lack the skill and/or training to do so, but more simply lack the time. Fortunately, Superintendent Harrison and his team are working on finding ways to give supervisors more time to actually supervise. Until then, however, this area will remain a significant concern of ours.
 The NOPD Officer Assistance and Support program was rolled out much later than it should have been, and still has work to do to provide the support officers need and deserve. But we are seeing progress here too. NOPD brought in an outsider to lead the program who has impressed the Monitoring Team with her ideas, energy, and commitment.
 The Department’s strategy to promote community and problem-oriented policing remains immature. Meaningful community and problem-oriented policing requires a “redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems.”2 In this context, some have described the community as a “co-producer” of public safety.3 A meaningful community and problem-oriented policing program, however, requires a Department-wide strategy, the involvement of officers and managers at all levels, and, of course, the community.
 The way the Department selects its new officers still has a long way to go to be effective. But even here, some notable progress has been made recently. Thanks

2

The Department of Justice and other entities have prepared and made available to the public numerous

reports and texts describing the theories behind and components of community policing and problem-

oriented policing See, e.g., Community and Problem-oriented Policing, Department of Justice Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program (Oct. 2010).

3

Id.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 13 of 100
Page 13 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
to the New Orleans business community, local Human Resources professionals now sit alongside NOPD supervisors to interview recruits. And, as reflected in our last report, NOPD is in the process of restructuring the entire selection process, including rewriting its outdated multiple choice and written exams, and reformulating its overly-structured interview process.
While the forgoing comments reflect our concerns as well as our optimism, no one should mistake the Monitoring Team’s optimism for naïveté. The gaps identified above reflect critically important issues that must be fixed in a meaningful way. But the Monitoring Team remains optimistic we will continue seeing progress being made.
Four things fuel the Monitoring Team’s optimism.
 First, as noted in our prior Report, the Monitoring Team has witnessed a transformation in the attitude and commitment of NOPD management toward change. The past year has been marked by commitment and cooperation throughout the Department. While NOPD leadership and the Monitoring Team certainly disagree on substantive matters from time to time, Superintendent Harrison has not given us a single reason to question his or his leadership team’s commitment to transforming the NOPD into a premier law enforcement agency.
 Second, the Monitoring Team’s work over the past two years has revealed a genuine desire among most rank and file officers to follow the rules, protect their communities, and restore honor to the NOPD brand. The members of the Monitoring Team have spoken to and ridden with hundreds of officers since August 2013, and by far, most want to do the right thing.
 Third, the support and resources the Department receives from the community is impressive. Local business organizations, community groups, civil rights groups, and the citizens who make their voices heard through our public meetings and other venues, continue to make their time, resources, and ideas (both positive and negative) available to the NOPD. Whether those voices are supportive or critical, the involvement and dedication has been and will continue to be invaluable.
 Fourth, is the unmistakable resilience of the New Orleans community, the loyalty of that community to the City, and the persistence with which community members have fought for a better police department over the past many years.
These facts fuel our optimism, but they do not cause us to “go easy” on the NOPD or to overlook the significant gaps that still stand between the Department and its emergence from the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 14 of 100 Page 14 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Superintendent Harrison recently brought in a number of policing experts from across the country to discuss ways in which the Department could better serve community members and officers alike. Toward the end of this meeting, one deputy police chief from Maryland who had been through a Consent Decree of his own, turned to the Superintendent and offered the following observation. He said, “Chief, you are in an enviable position. You can make the New Orleans Police Department into whatever you want it to be. How many of us ever have that opportunity?”
That Deputy Chief was right. While it may not feel like it now, NOPD has a unique opportunity to decide who it wants to be. The citizens of New Orleans already have spoken regarding what they want NOPD to be. The Monitoring Team will remain vigilant to ensure they get it.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 15 of 100
Page 15 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report covers the third and fourth quarters of 2015, which were busy months for NOPD – and for the Monitoring Team. Among other things, the Monitoring Team undertook the following activities between July and December 2015.
 We spent significant time reviewing and working with the NOPD and the Department of Justice to revise and finalize policies. Among the policies that took substantial time during this period was NOPD’s immigration policy. In addition to working closely with NOPD and the Department of Justice, the Team also met with the New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice and key thought-leader on immigration-related issues.
 We spent significant time focusing on the NOPD Academy, including observing classes, reviewing lesson plans, and meeting with Academy instructors and management. We also participated in the Academy’s conduct of a “gap analysis” designed to identify gaps in the Academy’s current course offerings, analyzed and provided significant feedback on the Academy’s draft “2016 Master Training Plan,” and provided feedback on key structural issues, including reorganizing the Academy’s current management structure.
 We initiated a study of juvenile arrests, the data from which are being analyzed by the Monitoring Team to ensure bias-free policing with respect to this unique group of citizens.
 We reviewed random samples of BWC videos to assess compliance with various Consent Decree requirements, including those relating to Stops, Searches, and Arrests.
 We reviewed the videos being used by the Academy in conjunction with recruit and in-service training and identified those videos that did not promote the fundamental tenets of the Consent Decree.
 We continued our ongoing review of how PIB codes complaints, and especially those complaints alleging racial profiling. The Monitoring Team has entered the second phase of our analysis. In the meantime, we have shared key recommendations with the PIB so important enhancements can be made immediately, even before the completion of our analysis.
 We initiated an analysis of NOPD response time and the use of the “unfounded” classification by officers where “gone on arrival” would have been the correct classification.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 16 of 100 Page 16 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 As described more fully below, we recommended the creation of (and participated in) a working group of patrol officers charged with identifying ways to free up officer time so they can more quickly (a) answer calls for service, (b) engage in community and problem-oriented policing, and (c) be more proactive in their communities.
 We continued monitoring the misconduct review, investigation, and disciplinary process to ensure fairness, effectiveness, and compliance with the Consent Decree.
 Most recently, we analyzed NOPD’s plans to redeploy 94 officers to patrol duties from other functions within the Department. While we applauded the Superintendent’s thoughtful efforts to counteract the City’s crime and officer response time problems, we also recognized significant potential risks in the plan that must be dealt with before the redeployment is fully implemented. For example, among other things, the Monitoring Team expressed concern over the potential negative impact on the Department’s still-inadequate community policing principles.
We also, as we always do, continued riding with officers and supervisors to ensure we have a first-hand look at how NOPD’s new policies, procedures, and training are being translated into practice on the street.
In addition to the foregoing, the Monitoring Team also spent significant time this quarter meeting with and listening to citizens, community leaders, and officers regarding the police department, the consent decree, and police reform generally. While we cannot recount all the questions, suggestions, and concerns we have fielded over these months, the following questions asked at the Monitoring Team’s most recent Quarterly Public Meeting are illustrative of others we have received previously.
Question/Comment. What is the Monitoring Team doing to make police officers more respectful when they pull people over for a traffic stop?
Monitoring Team Response.
Citizens unquestionably deserve to be treated with respect in all their interactions with police officers. Common sense demands it and the Consent Decree requires it. Section VIII of the Consent Decree specifically obligates NOPD to deliver police services that are equitable, respectful, and bias-free in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 17 of 100
Page 17 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

confidence in the Department.4 When officers fail to show respect to citizens in the context of traffic stops they not only leave the citizen with a negative impression of the officer, but of the police department generally. This frustrates the Department’s efforts to promote trust among community members and decreases the cooperation between citizens and officers.
That the NOPD still has a ways to go to shed its prior image of a disrespectful department was borne out by the Monitoring Team’s community survey, conducted in December, 2014. When asked about the traits police officers should exhibit, citizens overwhelmingly listed “treat people with respect” among their answers. Unfortunately, more than 47% of respondents still did not believe NOPD officers acted professionally. Obviously, this issue – whether based upon reality, perception, or a little of both – needs to be remedied.
The Monitoring Team assesses the level of NOPD respectfulness in several ways. First and foremost, we ensure the concepts of respect, equality, and dignity are embedded in all courses taught at the Academy. We do this by reviewing the lesson plans, monitoring classes, and ensuring NOPD lives up to its other teaching commitments (like having lesson plans reviewed by its Training Advisory Committee as well as by relevant experts outside NOPD). Second, we review officer BWC camera videos and bring instances of unprofessional conduct immediately to the attention of the NOPD. Third, we ride along with officers and supervisors frequently to observe their interactions with citizens and with one another.
Question/Comment. I read in the paper the police associations are blaming the Consent Decree for NOPD’s poor response times. Is this true?
Monitoring Team Response.
On October 27, 2015, the New Orleans Advocate correctly reported a story criticizing NOPD’s slow responses to citizen calls for service.5 According to the Advocate’s data, the average time NOPD takes to respond to an incident “has more than tripled since 2010.” Fox News and NOLA.com have published similar findings. The data come as no surprise to the citizens of New Orleans or to the Monitoring Team, which has raised the issue of backlogged calls and response times with the Department on prior occasions.
In response to the media stories regarding response times, one local police association was quoted as blaming the Consent Decree for much of the problem. While the Monitoring

4

The concepts of dignity, respect, and procedural fairness often collectively are described as “procedural

justice.” The concept, while not novel or surprising, “describes the idea that how individuals regard the

justice system is tied more to the perceived fairness of the process and how they were treated rather than to

the perceived fairness of the outcome.” The Case For Procedural Justice: Fairness as a Crime Prevention

Tool, Community Policing Dispatch 6:9 (Sept. 2013).

5

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/13814189-123/special-report-tripling-of-new.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 18 of 100
Page 18 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Team disagrees with the characterization, we certainly recognize the Consent Decree is a factor. The Consent Decree, like the U.S. Constitution, requires police officers to do certain things to protect the rights of the citizens. These things sometimes take time. Fully investigating sex crimes and domestic violence, reporting uses of force against citizens, reporting stops and searches of citizens, and providing meaningful roll call training all take time, but it is time well worth taking. The simple fact is that, sometimes, doing things right takes a little longer. At the same time, the Consent Decree’s requirements reflect accepted best practices by professional police departments across the country.
A number of factors have prolonged response times. The manpower shortage is certainly one, although the Monitoring Team’s experts have pointed out that the NOPD’s ratio of officers to citizens is in line with peer departments that nevertheless are able to respond to service calls in a timely manner. Additionally, the New Orleans Inspector General identified inefficient deployment of officers as a major cause for long response times. In our monitoring we have observed a number of other factors that divert officers from responding to calls.
To help improve response times, the Monitoring Team recommended the creation of a working group of patrol officers to identify ways to free up officer time so they can more quickly (a) answer calls for service, (b) engage in community and problem-oriented policing, and (c) be more proactive in their communities. To the Department’s credit, the Superintendent immediately accepted the Monitoring Team’s recommendation and put together a Working Group within days.
In the space of two meetings, the Working Group identified almost twenty actions it believes would allow officers to perform their jobs more efficiently without compromising the rights of the citizens. The Monitoring Team has reviewed the proposed action items and was impressed by the thoughtfulness of the ideas. We have no doubt that, if even part of this list is implemented, it will contribute meaningfully and measurably to improving response times.
Question/Comment. Why doesn’t the desk officer at my district police station have to wear a Body Worn Camera?
Monitoring Team Response.
Since the roll out of the NOPD’s Body Worn Camera (BWC) program in 2014, the Department steadily has expanded the scope of the program. Initially, only patrol officers answering calls for service received BWCs, but following discussions with the Monitoring Team, the Department expanded the program to include special operations units, task force officers, and, most recently, sergeants as well. As of our last audit, NOPD had issued BWCs to 100% of its patrol officers, General Assignment officers, Quality of Life officers, and School Resources officers in all eight districts. As most desk officers in district stations are patrol officers, most also should have BWCs assigned to them. To the extent a non-patrol officer (e.g.,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 19 of 100 Page 19 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
an officer on administrative duties) handles desk duties, it is possible that officer may not have been issued a BWC. NOPD continues to expand the scope of its BWC program and the Monitoring Team expects instances where an officer has not been issued a BWC will continue to decline.
Question/Comment. Why does the police department not share videos of critical incidents with the public?
Monitoring Team Response.
As police departments across the country roll out BWC programs, they have found themselves struggling with a host of collateral issues, including, among many other things, whether, when, and how to release video recordings to the public. The national news has shown us all the power of video footage in the context of justified and unjustified police shootings. To ensure New Orleans dealt with this issue in a fair, consistent, and compliant manner, in November, U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan recommended the NOPD develop a written policy governing the release of NOPD video recordings of critical incidents (e.g., officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths, etc.). Consistent with the Consent Decree’s demand that the police department promote transparency, and recognizing that transparency facilitates increased trust between the NOPD and the New Orleans community, Judge Morgan sought a policy that would facilitate the prompt release of video recordings of critical incidents involving the NOPD so long as the release is consistent with the legitimate needs of ongoing law enforcement operations.
In December, the City, the NOPD, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Department of Justice worked together to develop a policy consistent with Judge Morgan’s recommendation. The Monitoring Team has reviewed the policy and believes it represents a well thought-out approach toward promoting transparency while protecting privacy rights as well as the legitimate interests of law enforcement. The policy will be implemented shortly.
* * *
Finally, as we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team spent significant time meeting with, and listening to, the parties to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ. We also continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor’s team.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 20 of 100
Page 20 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VII. POLICIES

The NOPD, in close coordination with the DOJ and designated subject-matter experts on the Monitoring Team, continues to review and revise its policies as required by the Consent Decree to ensure policies are not only constitutional, but understandable by NOPD officers. The process entails considering and addressing numerous factors and interests, including evaluating whether the policy:

(1) Satisfies controlling constitutional and legal principles;

(2) Effectively communicates accepted law-enforcement practices;

(3) Is consistent with related policies;

(4) Appropriately accommodates the needs and interests of related agencies and stakeholders (such as organizations that coordinate with NOPD to support victims of sexual assault and domestic violence or the Officer Assistance Program); and

(5) Is reasonably understandable so it can serve the purpose of providing meaningful guidance to NOPD’s members.

In performing this evaluation, the NOPD and the Monitoring Team work with stakeholder groups from within the New Orleans community. The development of the Department’s Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) policy, for example, relied heavily upon the advice and guidance of the New Orleans mental health community, including the Orleans Parish Coroner’s Office, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Metropolitan Human Services District, and the City of New Orleans Emergency Medical Services, among others. Similarly, the development of the sexual assault and domestic violence policies benefited immeasurably from a number of community groups including the New Orleans Family Justice Center and the Tulane Law School Domestic Violence Clinic.

Since our last report, the following policies have been through that process and have been approved by the DOJ and the Monitoring Team:

•

Prisoner Transportation 9/15/15

•

Conducted Electrical Weapons 10/14/15

•

Foot Pursuits 10/15/15

•

Use of Force Review Board 10/15/15

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 21 of 100
Page 21 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

•

Firearms 10/15/15

•

Sexual Assault (and Sex Crimes Operating Guidelines) 11/20/15

Additionally, amendments to two policies, Negotiated Settlements and Reporting Use of Force were approved.

More recently (and after this reporting period), the Monitoring Team and DOJ approved the Department’s Immigration Status policy, Crisis Intervention Team policy, Crisis Intervention Transportation policy, and its Misconduct & Adjudication policy. All three of these efforts required not only significant drafting, but also required a substantive rethinking of the underlying practices. The Monitoring Team recognizes the significant reforms NOPD has embraced through this effort, especially with respect to the Misconduct & Adjudication policy.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 22 of 100
Page 22 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VIII. USE OF FORCE
A. Use of Force Generally
The Monitoring Team spent significant time in the latter half of 2015 focusing on Use of Force issues. Our work included, among other things, reviewing, revising, and ultimately approving a number of Use of Force policies; evaluating PIB administrative and criminal investigations; working with PIB to improve its internal documentation and templates; overseeing and facilitating the creation of an NOPD Use of Force Review Board; reviewing the process for inputting data into “IAPro,” the Department’s current disciplinary database; providing in-person training to NOPD Force Investigations Team (“FIT”) officers regarding use of force investigation best practices; and reviewing use of force videos and reports.
Over the course of its reviews, the Monitoring Team identified areas in need of improvement and identified specific practices in need of improvement. Among other things, the Monitoring Team found PIB/FIT reports still lack adequate probing by the investigators; specifically asking direct questions for closure on open issues. Additionally, we found in certain cases a lack of follow-up regarding evidence preservation, training issues, and tactical issues. These issues are critically important not only to the investigation, but also to ensure the integrity of future investigations and officer safety.
While we still find problems in some PIB/FIT reports – all of which were brought to the immediate attention of the NOPD PIB – we are seeing continued improvement in the work of the NOPD Force Investigations Team. We also have been impressed by the commitment of the new FIT supervisor, Lt. Kevin Burns, who has been making an impressive effort to enhance FIT’s processes and practices.
To assist FIT coming into compliance with the Consent Decree more quickly, the Monitoring Team continued to provide members of FIT with technical assistance so they develop the capacity to conduct a comprehensive review of use of force incidents to identify policy violations, tactical errors, missed de-escalation opportunities, training deficiencies, and/or equipment failures. Further, the Monitoring Team provided a full-training program in January to the members of NOPD FIT and other NOPD staff who have critical roles to play in managing use of force, including members of the Use of Force Review Board, the Academy, the Special Weapons Team Commander and Communications.
In addition to our work on policies, procedures, and practices, the Monitoring Team also continues to review reports, witness statements, and video footage from officer uses of force, including officer involved shootings and in-custody uses of force. Among other incidents we reviewed this period were:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 23 of 100
Page 23 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 An internal-NOPD complaint filed by a sergeant who, in reviewing video recordings, witnessed an officer strike the face of a handcuffed prisoner who was shouting racial epithets at the officer. The Monitoring Team has followed this incident carefully, including PIB’s initial response, investigation, and disposition of the matter. The matter still is under investigation by PIB.
 An officer-involved-shooting the Monitoring Team had reviewed previously to assess the Department’s follow-up investigation. This event occurred in December 2015, and involved a traffic stop for a license plate violation. The officer approached the vehicle and the driver fired a shot at the officer. The officer returned fire, striking the driver who died on the scene.
 An officer-involved-shooting the Monitoring Team had reviewed previously to assess the Department’s follow-up investigation. This event occurred in April 2015, and involved an armed robbery and hostage situation at a Dollar General store. The officers discharged firearms at a male as he exited the business with a gun in his hand. The male was struck and died on the scene.
 An officer-involved-shooting that the Monitoring Team had reviewed previously to assess the Department’s follow-up investigation. This event involved a male suspected of drug use in a parked car at night who ran from the officer and subsequently shot at the officer during the chase. The officer returned fire, striking and killing the suspect.
 An officer-involved-shooting that the Monitoring Team had reviewed previously to assess the Department’s follow-up investigation. The event took place in October 2015, and involved a 911 call about individuals with guns in the front yard of a home with children. When the police pulled up, the subjects fled into a residence and back outside where one of the subjects fired a shot at the officer. The officer returned fire and struck the individual with a non-fatal gunshot.
 An officer-involved-shooting that the Monitoring Team had reviewed previously to assess the Department’s follow-up investigation. The event occurred in July 2015, and involved an off-duty officer flagged down by an individual in a neighborhood regarding a domestic disturbance. The individual involved in the domestic disturbance charged toward the officer with a tree branch. He hit the officer in the head and the officer fired his service weapon, striking the individual. The subject died at the scene.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 24 of 100
Page 24 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 A high-speed vehicle pursuit in September 2015. This event involved NOPD officers pursuing an out-of-state stolen automobile, and deviated significantly from NOPD policy.
The Monitoring Team continues to review all aspects of all serious uses of force involving NOPD officers on a real-time basis. We personally respond to the scene of the event, monitor the interview of the involved and witness officers, monitor subsequent PIB interviews (as necessary), and review all relevant video footage.
B. Use of Force Review Board
Paragraph 108 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “develop and implement a Use of Force Review Board to review all serious uses of force and other FIT investigations.” As detailed in the Consent Decree, NOPD’s Review Board is comprised of the Deputy Superintendent of the Public Integrity Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of the Field Operations Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of the Investigations & Support Bureau, and other members.
The Consent Decree spells out the tasks of the Use of Force Review Board, which we summarize here:
a) Review NOPD use of force investigations to ensure they are complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
b) Hear a case presentation from the lead investigator and discuss the case as necessary with the investigator to gain a full understanding of the facts of the incident.
c) Order additional investigation when necessary. d) Determine whether the force violated NOPD policy, and, if so, refer the matter to
PIB for disciplinary action if such action has not already been initiated. e) Determine whether the incident raises policy, training, equipment, or tactical
concerns, and refer such incidents to the appropriate unit within NOPD to ensure they are resolved. f) Direct District supervisors to take and document non-disciplinary corrective action to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance. The Consent Decree requires that the Review Board document its findings and recommendations in a formal Use of Force Review Board Report within 45 days of receiving the FIT investigation and within 15 days of the case presentation.
NOPD convened its first Use of Force Review Board on Friday, January 22, 2016, with the Monitoring Team in attendance. The Review Board examined three uses of force by NOPD
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 25 of 100
Page 25 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
officers. While clearly outside the period covered by this Quarterly Report, we would be remiss if we did not at least comment on this important event here.
In short, the first Review Board session was handled extremely well. The Review Board’s discussion was thoughtful, introspective, and substantive. Newly-appointed Deputy Chief Paul Noel facilitated the session, and was an active participant. Voting members of the Board, including PIB Chief Arlinda Westbrook and ISB Chief Rannie Mushatt, were active participants. Non-voting members, Academy Commander Richard Williams, Fifth District Commander Christopher Goodly, SWAT Commander Bryan Lampard, and the several other participants, also substantively and effectively contributed to the discussion. In the view of the Monitoring Team, all did a great job.
Chief Noel kept the meeting flowing over the course of several hours. He encouraged input from all members, ensured no participant was afraid to speak his/her mind, and actively solicited input from hesitant members when necessary. At one point, one participant complained about the Board’s “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Chief Noel quickly pointed out that “Monday morning quarterbacking” was exactly what the Board was doing, and exactly what the Board was supposed to do.
In this inaugural session, three use of force cases were presented by the responsible PIB FIT investigator. (The officer who used the force under investigation was not present at the Review Board session.) On the whole, the investigators did a good job with their presentations, presenting the facts in a fair, unbiased, and logical fashion. While the Monitoring Team believes the investigator presentations will improve further once the investigators have a better sense of what issues the Review Board members focus on most, the presentations nonetheless were quite competent, especially for the first session.
As it is our job to be skeptical as we review the Department’s activities, the Monitoring Team went into this task with its collective eyes open to make sure the Review Board didn’t avoid complicated issues, run away from embarrassing discoveries, or fail to lodge criticism at the NOPD where appropriate. Fortunately, the Review Board did none of these things. The Review Board was open, honest, thoughtful, and self-critical (where appropriate). To share just one example here, the Review Board examined one officer-involved shooting that took place in 2015. While the shooting itself was found to be justified by PIB and the Board (a finding with which the Monitoring Team agreed), the Review Board dove deeply into the actions and tactics of the officers leading up to the shooting.
While, for the reasons noted above, the Monitoring Team was very impressed with the quality of the first Use of Force Review Board session, the key to the body’s success rests upon the Department’s ability to implement effective and lasting changes where deficiencies are identified. As one pair of researchers writing for a Navy publication commented over a decade
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 26 of 100
Page 26 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ago, the term “lessons learned” often is inapt in the context of “after-action” reviews because too often deficiencies are identified, but not corrected:
[T]he term “lessons learned” is often a misnomer. Our experience suggests that purported lessons learned are not really learned; many problems and mistakes are repeated in subsequent events. It appears that while review of incidents and the identification of lessons are more readily accomplished, true learning is much more difficult. Reports and lessons are often ignored, and even when they are not, lessons are too often isolated and perishable, rather than generalized and institutionalized.6
The Monitoring Team will remain vigilant to ensure the lessons learned from NOPD’s Use of Force Review Board are institutionalized so “true learning” results from the practice. As one initial signal the Department is striving for precisely this sort of “true learning,” the Review Board directed Academy Commander Richard Williams to take prompt follow-up action to implement enhanced training in the Academy, in in-service training, and at roll calls focusing precisely on the issues identified by the Review Board. The Review Board further directed Commander Williams to return to the Review Board with a full report once the corrective actions are implemented.
Starting in April, Use of Force Review Boards will be scheduled for the first Thursday of each month. The Monitoring Team will continue to review the Review Board sessions, as well as the implementation of the corrective actions resulting from those sessions.

6

Donahue, Amy and Tuohy, Robert, Lessons We Don’t Learn: A Study Of The Lessons Of Disasters, Why

We Repeat Them, And How We Can Learn Them, Homeland Security Affairs (July 2006).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 27 of 100 Page 27 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM In our last report, we commended NOPD for rolling out a top-notch CIT program. Since
its initiation, in August 2015, 50 officers have graduated from the program. The next CIT class is scheduled for February, following Mardi Gras. The Department is on its way to meeting its goal (and Consent Decree requirement) of having 20% of its patrol officers CIT-trained by August 2016. (CD 115)
As reported previously, the Monitoring Team reviewed the planning and actual training of the CIT officers, and was impressed by both. We subsequently interviewed officers who went through the CIT training and received near unanimous positive reports regarding the training quality, content, and effectiveness. We also reviewed the two written policies developed by the CIT Planning Committee, both of which have been approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice, and will be rolled out shortly.
We now are shifting our focus to evaluating how the CIT program is actually working on the street. In other words, we will be looking to see whether CIT officers are being notified of incidents involving mental health consumers; whether they properly are being given responsibility for the scene “and discretion to determine strategies for resolving the event,” as required by the Consent Decree (CD 113); and whether the program is resulting in increased safety for mental health service consumers, citizen bystanders, and officers alike.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 28 of 100
Page 28 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

X. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
Section X of the Consent Decree sets forth NOPD’s obligations with respect to conducting custodial interrogations, including when and how such interrogations shall be conducted and what records the Department must maintain to ensure transparency and accountability.
The Monitoring Team regularly reviews a sample of records and videos of custodial interrogations in each police district and in the Department’s specialty units (e.g., Homicide). None of the records we reviewed in this period’s sample evidenced any inappropriate use of force, intimidation, or threats during a custodial interrogation.7 Additionally, though not in full compliance in all districts yet, the NOPD showed significant improvements with respect to its record keeping obligations relating to Custodial Interrogations. While we did not audit this area during the period covered by this report, the results of our January 2016 audit are worth including here as evidence of this improvement.
 The Seventh District demonstrated 100% compliance with paragraphs 163, 164, 165, 167, and 168 of the Consent Decree. District 7 was in full or substantial compliance with all paragraphs regarding custodial interrogations. This reflects remarkable progress since District 7 had made very little progress during the audit the Monitoring Team conducted nine months ago.
 The Fifth District not only did not have ready access to its files, it also did not exhibit the same level of compliance as the Seventh. The Monitoring Team identified several discrepancies in the files we reviewed. Some people listed as being “interviewed” actually were handcuffed and/or informed of their rights. Consequently, they should have been listed as “interrogations.” Some officers noted in the log they did not take notes when the recording provided evidence they did take notes. (Notes, if taken, are required to be in the case file.) With respect to the availability of recordings, the Fifth District demonstrated 81% compliance. The District showed a similar rate of compliance for the remaining custodial interrogation related paragraphs. The District was unable to demonstrate any compliance with paragraph 166.
 The Fourth District demonstrated a level of compliance of 85% for most of the paragraphs in this area.

7

Obviously, this finding relates only to those files available for the Monitoring Team’s review. Some

districts still are unable to locate 100% of their custodial interrogation files. (In fact, in our most recent

review, 3 of the 5 districts audited were unable to locate 100% of their files.) This remains a significant

concern to the Monitoring Team.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 29 of 100 Page 29 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 The Third District showed significant improvement over prior periods. While the District had trouble locating recordings in a timely fashion (it took more than three hours to locate 18 recordings), eventually the District located all but two recordings. (We alerted Department management about the missing two recordings.) With respect to the available recordings, however, the level of compliance was quite high.
The full results of our district-by-district audits of the Custodial Interrogations will be presented in the Monitoring Team’s next quarterly report.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 30 of 100
Page 30 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XI. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUPS
Section XI of the Consent Decree covers photographic lineups, i.e., the practice of showing a victim or a witness a series of photographs of similar looking individuals to determine whether he/she does or does not recognize the person the police believe is a suspect or the perpetrator. The Consent Decree sets forth the rules and standards for conducting photographic lineups, and the Monitoring Team regularly audits the Department’s compliance with those rules and standards in each police district and in the Department’s specialty units (e.g., Homicide).
While not in full compliance in all districts yet, the NOPD showed significant improvements with respect to its obligations relating to photographic lineups. While we did not audit this area during the period covered by this report, the results of our January 2016 audit are worth including here as evidence of its improvement.
 The Seventh District demonstrated 100% compliance with paragraphs 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176 of the Consent Decree.
 The Fifth District demonstrated 100% compliance with paragraphs 171, 172, 173, 174, and 176 of the Consent Decree. The Fifth District failed to demonstrate full compliance with only paragraph 175 of the Consent Decree, but this was only because a detective failed to include the names of those present during one photo line-up as required.
 The Fourth District demonstrated 100% compliance with paragraphs 171, 172, 173, and 176 of the Consent Decree. With respect to paragraph 1748 (84% compliance) and paragraph 1759 (69% compliance), it did less well.
 The Third District likewise showed a high rate of compliance, but failed to achieve 100% in most cases. Nonetheless, its efforts, like the other districts, have borne fruit, and its compliance levels were much higher than in previous periods.
The full results of our district-by-district audits of the Photographic Lineups will be presented in the Monitoring Team’s next quarterly report.

8

Paragraph 174 requires that NOPD keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The

record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name

of the administrator of the line-up.

9

Paragraph 175 requires that NOPD documents other information pertinent to the display procedure,

including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the

procedure.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 31 of 100
Page 31 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS
A. Special Victims Section Assessment
1. Introduction
The Monitoring Team evaluated a representative sample of cases investigated by the sex crimes section of the NOPD Special Victims Section (“SVS”) between May and August, 2015. Our assessment covered 30% of the 111 cases completed during those months, as reported by the NOPD. Our assessment was conducted onsite, in the new NOPD SVS offices, located in the New Orleans Family Justice Center (“NOFJC”). The NOFJC is a partnership of agencies dedicated to ending violence through prevention and coordinated response to victims. The NOFJC provides comprehensive client-centered, empowerment services in a single location. The SVS sexual assault investigators and domestic violence detectives are now co-located in the offices of the NOFJC.
The Monitoring Team randomly selected the 33 cases for review this period. Because one of the originally selected cases was not an SVS case (due to a transposed number), our final assessment included findings in 32 cases. We used a 35-item checklist to conduct the assessment, a copy of which is attached to this report as Attachment 1. The NOPD cooperated fully in our assessment and exhibited a sincere interest in learning from our findings and correcting identified deficiencies.
2. Overview
The SVS continues to adjust to a number of recent changes, including a new NOFJC office location, several newly assigned detectives, a new supervisor, and a number of new practices designed to correct past investigative deficiencies. These changes have been positive, and the Monitoring Team has seen significant improvements in the way the SVS conducts its work. For example, an investigator’s “Case File Index” checklist now is included in each case file to guide the investigator throughout the investigation and assist the SVS supervisor in ensuring the case was sufficiently investigated and properly documented. As in most situations involving significant changes, however, it takes time for changes to be firmly institutionalized. Such is the case with SVS. And while progress has been made, much work still needs to be done. For example, though most SVS investigation files included the required Case File Index, in several cases the index was under-utilized and some documentation of the completed investigation was missing.
Similar stories could be told with respect to other SVS requirements. Fortunately, the SVS’s new leadership clearly is working hard to remedy the Unit’s shortcomings, and is making progress. Further, SVS’s leadership has been extremely responsive to the Monitoring Team’s preliminary findings. Each instance of noncompliance was brought to the attention of the new
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 32 of 100 Page 32 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
SVS commander who promptly set out to take corrective action. The Monitoring Team will continue conducting periodic assessments until we are convinced the new procedures are embraced and consistently practiced by every member of the SVS team.
3. Findings
The Monitoring Team’s assessment found the SVS in full or near full compliance with five of the 35 elements of our assessment checklist. These include the following items:
 Question #4 – Is there a Major Offense Report Form in the case file?
 Question #7 – Is there evidence of attention to the victim’s needs?
 Question #30 – Did the Detective utilize the Case File Index from nopd.org?
 Question #32- Was there a documented authorization for a Signal change, if required?
 Question #33- Is there documented supervisory review of reports and dispositions?
Notwithstanding these positive developments, as indicated below, SVS’s success in implementing Consent Decree requirements was less consistent in other areas.
a. Supplemental Reports
A properly prepared case supplemental report should document the steps completed in the follow-up investigation. Supplemental reports provide the supervisor with the necessary information to determine whether the case was properly and satisfactorily investigated. A supplemental report should document, for example, whether the case remains open or closed, whether a warrant was initiated or served, and whether all leads were followed sufficiently to determine whether spending additional time on the investigation is warranted. When supplemental reports are not included in the case file, supervisors (and the Monitoring Team) waste substantial time verifying all required victim or witness interviews occurred and that all investigative steps were completed. Use of the Case File Index will help ensure the investigations are thorough and the case files complete in every SVS case file prior to supervisors approving the investigation.
As reflected in the chart below, in 11 of the cases we reviewed (34%) a supplement either was not written or was not available in the case file.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 33 of 100
Page 33 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Not Applicable
3%

5. Is there a Supplemental Report?

Noncompliant 34%

Compliant 63%

An SVS supervisor eventually was able to locate five supplements for 2015. This follow-up response during the audit improved the number of cases where a supplement was available in the case file to 26 of the 32 cases (81%).
Following the Monitoring Team’s assessment, NOPD re-assigned one case for a followup investigation due to no supplemental report in the file.10 The remaining five cases had been properly investigated and either were closed by arrest, had problems with the victim’s identity or credibility, or were closed by exception. Each needed only to be supplemented, with information already documented in a Major Offense Report Form (“MORF”) or an incident report, to complete the file. These are NOT cases where the NOPD failed to conduct a follow-up investigation.
b. Victim Statements
As reflected in the chart below, in seven cases (22%) no victim statement was in the file. Four of the files indicated a statement had been taken, but no statement was available for review by the supervisor or the Monitoring Team. In three of these cases it was unknown whether a preliminary statement had been taken.

10

The Monitoring Team followed-up with NOPD, and found the assigned investigator had obtained an arrest

warrant for the offender. The case still was open, pending the arrest of the wanted subject.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 34 of 100
Page 34 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

6. Is there a victim statement (video, audio, or transcribed)?

Not Applicable 9%

Unknown 9%

Noncompliant 22%

Compliant 60%

Sexual assault investigations typically include both a preliminary and a follow-up interview of the victim. The results of our assessment indicate some investigators either are not routinely documenting their preliminary victim interviews, or are not including the recording in the case file. When a file is incomplete, supervisors are unable to assess fully the quality of the investigation. In some cases, an audio statement was taken, but the recording was not included in the file. SVS investigators and supervisors now are utilizing the case checklist to improve the collection of all pertinent investigative evidence.
c. Follow-Up Interview
The case file checklist now requires the supervisor to ensure a follow-up interview is documented and included in the case file. As a result of our work in this area, the Monitoring Team discovered a minor problem, which we brought to the attention of the SVS commander. We expect the problem to be corrected with improved use of the case file checklist and supervisory reviews with Command-level signatures.
As reflected in the chart below, there were only two cases (6%) lacking documentation of a follow-up interview of the victim after the initial preliminary investigation. In one of these cases, the detective stated in a supplemental report she would look for surveillance video recordings, but the file did not contain a subsequent supplemental report as to whether this was done. Another case involved an on-line sexual predator who violated his probation. The initial report did not identify a victim. This case should have been supplemented if the follow-up investigator was unable to determine the identity of the victim.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 35 of 100
Page 35 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

8. Was there a follow-up interview after the initial on-scene investigation?
Unknown 6%

Not Applicable 31%

Compliant 57%

Noncompliant 6%
Investigators always should arrange for equipment to record follow-up interviews so they may focus on listening, as indicated in the SVS Standard Operating Procedures. When victim statements are recorded, a supervisor is better able to assess the quality of the interview and determine whether the investigator utilized proper interview strategies and was empathetic with the victim(s). The case file checklist now requires the supervisor ensure a follow-up interview is documented and included in the case file.
d. Documented Witness Statement
In response to Question #10 (Are there documented witness statements?), the Monitoring Team identified four cases where we expected to find documented witness video, audio or transcribed statements. The results of our assessment are presented in the chart below:

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 36 of 100
Page 36 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

10. Are there documented witness (video, audio, or transcribed) statements?
Unknown 3%

Not Applicable 47%

Compliant 37%

Noncompliant 13%
As required in the SVS Standard Operating Procedures, investigators should identify and interview potential witnesses, bearing in mind there may be multiple crime scenes. It is especially important that the investigator identify and interview the first person the victim told about the assault. Investigators also should interview witnesses who might have seen or spoken with the victim before, during, or after the assault. These statements must be documented and included in the case file. The documentation aids in the investigation, assists the supervisor in determining whether the investigation is being handled properly, and assists the District Attorney should there be criminal proceedings. The Monitoring Team’s review indicates a need for improvement in obtaining witness statements and ensuring they are included in the case files.
As a result of the findings in Question #10 (and Questions #27 and #28, dealing with a surveillance video canvas and witness canvasses), the SVS commander has instructed detectives assigned to the SVS to ensure witness canvasses and searches for surveillance videos are performed in every case with the potential for finding additional evidence, and the results of those canvasses are to be documented in a supplemental report.
e. Documentation of Search for Video
There were five non-compliant case file responses to Question #27, which assesses whether investigators documented whether they searched for surveillance videos.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 37 of 100
Page 37 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

27. Is there documentation of a search of surveillance video?

Not Applicable 66%

Compliant 19% Noncompliant 15%

As a result of these findings, the Monitoring Team met with the SVS commander concerning cases where it was evident a witness canvas or a search for a video recording could have aided in the investigation. In one example, a victim was sexually assaulted on Canal Street where it is well known there are many available surveillance cameras. In the five non-compliant cases, the file contained no indication of a witness canvas or a search for videos. Upon being informed of our findings, the SVS commander made it clear to his investigators a complete investigation requires a search for video evidence – particularly where it is evident surveillance video could be helpful to the investigation.
f. Documentation of Witness Canvas
There were six non-compliant case file responses to the Monitoring Team’s Question #28, which assessed whether investigators are documenting their witness canvases. The results of our review are presented in the chart below.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 38 of 100
Page 38 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

28. Is there documented evidence of a witness canvas?

Not Applicable 56%

Compliant 25%
Noncompliant 19%

Investigators are required to identify and follow-up “leads,” including identifying potential witnesses. In the non-compliant cases in this audit, it was clear the investigator either became solely focused on the victim or did not pursue additional investigation into witnesses. Even if no witnesses are identified, all investigative steps taken to locate witnesses should be clearly documented in a supplement report. These cases should be investigated as if the detective were investigating a homicide. As the current SVS commander has instructed, NOPD requires a full “horizontal” and “vertical” investigation, with any potential evidence located and documented, including witness canvasses.
g. Documentation of MOTION Usage
A competent investigator also should document his or her checks of a suspect’s criminal history. MOTION is an acronym for the Metropolitan Orleans Total Information Online Network – an online criminal history system. In ten of the cases the Monitoring Team reviewed, the documents were located in the file. In another ten cases (31%), however, the Monitoring Team was unable to verify that this aspect of the investigation took place.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 39 of 100
Page 39 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

14. Is there documentation of MOTION/Coplink usage?

Not Applicable 38%

Compliant 31%

Noncompliant 31%

If the MOTIONS documents are not in the file, the supervisor cannot confirm the investigator adequately searched for a suspect or checked his/her criminal history, if the suspect is identified. A case file is incomplete without verification of a suspect’s criminal history.
In some cases reviewed, a warrant was initiated for a suspect, but there was no indication in the file of the suspect’s criminal history, if any. This is not only critical information for the case file, but also important information for the supervisors to determine whether additional resources must be used to improve the possibility of an apprehension. Though the MOTION section is on the Case File Index, it has been under-utilized by investigators. Our review found that some cases were signed as complete without the criminal history block being checked. The SVS commander and the CID Commander must both sign to indicate approval on the SVS Investigative Case File Index for each case. This is being corrected by SVS and additional supervisory over-sight is being provided in this area.
h. Documentation of Referral
Question #16 of the Monitoring Team’s checklist asks if there is a medical or a Sexual Assault Nurse Evaluation (SANE) report in the files. In 17 (53%) of the cases reviewed, this question was not applicable. In 12 cases (representing 38% of the cases where a report was expected), one was included. In 3 cases (9%), the SANE or medical report was not in the file. It is probable that if a SANE report is mentioned in the supplement, it likely is available in hospital records and was never placed in the case file. The complete file should include a copy of the documentation.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 40 of 100
Page 40 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

i. Referral to NOFJC
In August 2015, the SVS sex crimes unit relocated its offices to the New Orleans Family Justice Center, where the domestic violence detectives are also located. This co-location has enhanced the relationship with advocates and professionals trained to assist sexual assault victims and child victims during and following a sexual assault investigation. Our review of cases covered a period before this co-location occurred. As the below pie chart indicates, in six cases (19%), neither the incident nor the supplement report indicated a referral to the NOFJC or implied a referral of advocacy without mentioning the NOFJC. Officers and investigators are instructed specifically to document in their reports that victims were referred to the NOFJC.
17. Is there a documented referral to NOFJC staff?
Unknown 3%

Not Applicable 28%
Noncompliant 19%

Compliant 50%

The current SVS policy requires investigators to refer all sexual assault victims to the NOFJC. Based upon frequent (and ongoing) conversations with the SVS commander, the Monitoring Team is optimistic NOPD will be in full compliance with the referral requirements now that the unit is co-located with NOFJC
j. Evidence and Property Receipts
The SVS case files the Monitoring Team reviewed were generally in compliance with the Consent Decree requirements regarding documenting evidence collection in the case file report (Q # 23). Pursuant to NOPD policy, all recovered physical evidence is to be delivered to NOPD Central Evidence and Property Section, recorded in the Sections computer system, and a receipt generated. A copy of the receipt should be included in the case file. However, the below chart indicates that of 32 cases reviewed, there were six cases (19%) where the evidence receipts themselves were not located in the file.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 41 of 100
Page 41 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

24. Was evidence submitted with evidence and property receipts?

Not Applicable 13%

Unknown 6%

Noncompliant 19%

Compliant 62%

The Monitoring Team raised these findings with SVS leadership, who agreed documentation of evidence submission is an important item to include in a file.
4. Conclusion
The Monitoring Team’s assessment demonstrates the NOPD SVS has improved from its prior state. While the SVS obviously and sadly struggled through the first 18 months of the Consent Decree, the unit finally seems to be on the right track. The Monitoring Team credits much of the recent improvement to the stable and effective leadership of the unit’s new commander and the NOPD Compliance Bureau.
A new SVS policy, which officially went into effect January 3, 2016, has been followed for the most part in recent months. This new policy, combined with enhanced staffing, an investigative checklist, improved case tracking and case management systems, and improved training coupled with NOFJC partnerships is reflected in the improved investigations and strengthened victim-centered approach that is more evident in recent case investigations we reviewed.
One of the more unfortunate consequences of dealing with poor and incomplete investigations under the prior SVS management is that when deficiencies are discovered in review of older investigations they must be re-assigned and those investigative efforts take away from hours spent on in-coming investigations. Not only do SVS detectives continue to follow-up on old cases that were left incomplete, but the Special Task Force created as a result of the 2014 OIG report on SVS deficiencies, continues to use Second District detectives to investigate cases from 2011 and 2012.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 42 of 100 Page 42 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The NOPD has an excellent opportunity to have an SVS that is guided by best practices and by the requirements of the Consent Decree, and to provide all victims with a victim-centered approach and thorough investigations. The clearly-stated position of NOPD’s current SVS leadership that all cases must be fully investigated, coupled with the new resources provided by the NOFJC, provide the framework for a successful unit. Under the current SVS leadership, the Monitoring Team believes the SVS is on-track and working effectively and commendably to address deficiencies noted herein and those previously identified by the New Orleans Office of Inspector General. Stability and conscientiousness in the unit’s leadership is the key to their recent progress and the key to their future success.
B. Domestic Violence Unit Assessment
1. Methodology
The Monitoring Team evaluated 27 randomly selected DVU case files covering the period May through August 2015. This sample represents 30% of the 90 cases assigned to DVU detectives during those months, as reported by the NOPD. The assessment was conducted primarily in the offices of the Domestic Violence Unit (“DVU”), which is housed in the New Orleans Family Justice Center (“NOFJC”). The 32-question checklist that guided our assessment is attached to this Report as Attachment 2. As with our other assessments, NOPD generally, and newly-appointed Commander Doug Eckert and his staff specifically, were fully cooperative throughout our assessment. The NOPD Compliance Bureau also cooperated in our assessment. Finally, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office provided invaluable assistance throughout our assessment.
2. Findings
The Monitoring Team’s assessment found NOPD to be in full or near full compliance with several requirements of the Consent Decree, including the following:
 Documentation of the investigator’s attempts to locate victims;
 Investigator’s and supervisor’s reviews of BWC recordings;
 Elements of the crime supporting the actual charges;
 When there was documented evidence of the potential risk to a victim, follow-up action occurred providing safety and/or protection advice;
 There was no use of a “dual arrest” in any of the cases;
 When strangulation was noted, appropriate documentation occurred;
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 43 of 100 Page 43 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Warrants were sought when appropriate;  Generally, initial investigations were professional and pro-active;  Generally, follow-up investigations were professional and pro-active;  Supervisory review and approvals were evident on all reports; and  There were no indications of a department employee, sworn officers or public
figure involvement which required additional documentation and notifications. Other areas, however, as discussed below, still need additional effort by NOPD.
a. Incident Reports An incident report from the initial responder was initially located in 25 (93%) of the 27 case files.
1. Is there an incident report in the file?
7%
Compliant Noncompliant 93%
Importantly, a DVU supervisor was able to locate the remaining two incident reports to complete the audit with 100% compliance in all audited files. The incident report is important information for the investigator to review as part of his/her follow-up investigation.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 44 of 100
Page 44 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

b. Contact With Victim
The Monitoring Team looked for documentation that the investigator made contact with the victim within one week of the DV incident, or within a reasonable period based on the circumstances. Ideally, a detective will re-contact a victim within a day or two of the domestic violence incident; however, volumes of calls and other assignments often cause a more delayed follow-up. As depicted in the below chart, DVU detectives are doing a reasonable job in recontacting the victim within one week, doing so in 93% of the cases reviewed.

5. Is there documentation of the investigator making contact with the victim within one week of the DV incident, or within a reasonable period
based on the circumstances?
4%
7%

Compliant

Noncompliant

89%

Not Applicable

Even though the DVU is clearly under-staffed,11 they are doing a reasonably good job recontacting domestic violence victims within a reasonable period of time. The DVU is making every effort to re-contact victims as soon as possible, and generally within one week of the domestic incident. Clearly, additional assigned investigators would reduce each detective’s workload and make this requirement easier to complete.

11

The Consent Decree requires the Domestic Violence Unit to be sufficiently staffed. Per Consent Decree

paragraph 218, NOPD must “assign sufficient staff to the DVU at the NOFCJ to permit detectives to

review, on a weekly basis, District-level reports on incidents of domestic violence, for the purpose of

identifying training needs and tracking the District’s response to domestic violence.” The Consent Decree

goes on to require “sufficient staff to conduct appropriate follow-up investigation on felony offenses…,”

and “sufficient detectives … based on the calls for service.” The Monitoring Team does not believe

NOPD’s current DVU staffing allocation is sufficient.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 45 of 100
Page 45 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

c. Criminal History
The Monitoring Team looked for documentation in the file of the offender’s “criminal history” or a “past history” check by either patrol or the investigator. As depicted in the chart below, in 56% of the audited cases, the Monitoring Team found documentation of a criminal history check or documentation detailing the domestic violence history of the assailant. This information is important for accurately understanding the relationship history and whether the violence is continuing and/or growing in intensity.
9. Is there documentation in the file of the offender’s “criminal history” or a “past history” check by either patrol or the investigator?

7% 11% 26%

56%

Compliant Noncompliant Not Applicable Unknown

In 26% of the cases, the Monitoring Team was unable to determine whether a criminal history or “past history” check was made by the initial officer or the investigator. Without this information in the file, the supervisor approving the content of the investigation is not receiving the full picture. The investigators must be more diligent in ensuring these checks are completed, documented, and available in the file for supervisory review. The DVU is now utilizing a case file check list that will allow the investigator and supervisor to verify all elements of the investigation are complete.
d. Risk Assessment
DVU detectives are required to review a victim’s response to four critical risk questions included in the patrol officer’s report. Per NOPD policy, these questions are to be asked by the preliminary investigator if any intimate partner, family, or household member alleges violence was used against them or a crime was committed against them. If these questions and answers are not documented in the original case report, they should be addressed and documented in the detective’s supplement. The four risk questions are as follows:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 46 of 100 Page 46 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
1. Do you think he/she will seriously injure or kill you, your children or someone else close to you? a. What makes you think so? b. What makes you think not?
2. How frequently does he/she intimidate, threaten or assault you? a. Is it changing? b. Getting worse? c. Getting better?
3. Describe the time you were most frightened or injured by him/her?
4. Have you ever been threatened or intimidated by the other party/parties for seeking help or attempting to seek help from law enforcement, the courts or others? If so, a. Who threatened you? b. When was the threat made? c. Describe the nature of the threat d. Was a weapon used?
As depicted in the below chart, patrol officers documented the four risk questions in their initial reports 78% of the time, and in most cases when they did not document the risk questions, the questions were addressed in a supplement by the DVU detective. These questions are obviously important indicators of the seriousness of the domestic violence situation and abuse history.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 47 of 100
Page 47 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

10. Is there a victim Risk Assessment documented by patrol?

7% 15%

78%

Compliant Noncompliant Not Applicable

The DV policy was officially issued on April 5, 2015 and training on this requirement is being conducted in in-service training. The Monitoring Team observed NOPD’s adherence to the requirements in the DV policy improve as the months progressed, as additional officers were trained, and as this particular requirement was enforced by supervisors and re-iterated by DVU detectives while approving patrol reports.
e. Victim/Witness Statements
As depicted in the below chart, there were only 3 cases (11%) where the victim or witness statements were not located in the case files. The DVU often relies on video statements and there are fewer written victim/witness statements since the deployment of BWC’s. In the majority of patrol response cases the officer relied on the BWC to document statements by the victim. The DA’s office is using the BWC’s effectively for case prosecution and their use has positively impacted prosecution.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 48 of 100
Page 48 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

23. Are there any victim/witness statements documented in the case file?
4%

30% 11%

55%

Compliant Noncompliant Not Applicable Unknown

In cases where a written statement is not documented by the preliminary investigator, it is important that detectives review and document what is stated in the BWC recording. By documenting victim statements or placing a recording in the file, a supervisor and the DA reviewing the case will have a better overall picture of the details of the crime.
f. Follow-Up Statements
As depicted in the chart below, the Monitoring Team identified five cases (19%) where there was either no documentation or no recording of the victim follow-up statements. In 9 of the 14 cases where a follow-up statement was expected the detective documented in a supplement what the victim stated on the BWC. The documentation is important for case review by supervisors. It would be difficult for a supervisor to review all BWCs for each domestic violence case assigned.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 49 of 100
Page 49 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

24. Is there documentation of or actual recordings of victim followup statements in the file?
4%

33% 44%
19%

Compliant Noncompliant Not Applicable Unknown

By documenting victim statements or placing a recording in the file, a supervisor and the DA reviewing the case will have a better overall picture of the details of the crime. These requirements were added to the new checklist to be used by detectives and supervisors to aid in determining whether the case file and investigation are complete.
3. Conclusion
The Domestic Violence Unit is well supervised under the leadership of its current supervisor, who has been a solid and persistent leader since the Monitoring Team began monitoring the unit over 28 months ago. The sergeant can be found in his office very early in the morning reviewing reports and responding to e-mails about case investigations. In the Monitoring Team’s view, he is dedicated to improving the DVU and has proven himself to be a true asset to the NOPD and the Monitoring Team. We received rave reviews of the sergeant’s work from the NOFJC staff, NOPD Compliance Bureau staff, and victim advocates working with him in his area of expertise.
The DVU team diligently worked to incorporate the elements of the Blueprint for Safety12 into the DV policy and DVU protocols, which were issued in April 2015. Current DVU management has an excellent relationship with the District Attorney’s Office and works closely

12

Developed in 2007 in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the Blueprint for Safety reflects a “comprehensive approach

for addressing domestic violence in the criminal legal system. The Blueprint integrates the knowledge

gleaned from more than thirty years of research, demonstration projects, and practice into a ‘Blueprint’ for

city and county agencies responding to misdemeanor and felony assaults.” See The New Orleans Blueprint

for Safety (October 21, 2014). [http://www nola.gov/health/domestic-violence-prevention/]

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 50 of 100
Page 50 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

with all District Commanders on deficiencies discovered in patrol officer’s cases. Current management is active in providing training on the DV policy and in responding positively and promptly when deficiencies are noted in either patrol or in the investigator’s response.
In response to the Monitoring Team’s audit, the DVU added a checklist for case files to remind detectives of the required documentation for a thorough investigative case file. The domestic violence policy implemented in April has led to more thorough reports and investigations on domestic violence cases. Further, the DVU’s co-location with the Family Justice Center adds to the Unit’s ability to provide a victim-centered response to domestic violence incidents.
To further improve the data collection for domestic violence cases, NOPD added domestic violence-specific fields to the electronic reporting system. Superintendent Harrison’s recent directive requiring officers to mark-up calls where the complainant is not on scene as “gone on arrival” rather than “unfounded” has decreased the number of unfounded calls and increased the number of gone on arrival calls, more accurately representing the disposition of domestic violence calls.13
It remains critical that NOPD provides timely responses to all Domestic Violence calls for service. It is clear to the Monitoring Team that once the victim is in the system and in contact with the DVU, the detectives are responding with a victim-centered approach and providing the services expected under the law and within the Consent Decree requirements. It is anticipated that compliance in all areas of the DVU and DV patrol response will continue to improve over time. The policy is still fairly new and the requirements within it are more complicated and stringent. As officers continue to train on the policy and find that the department and the OCDM are monitoring their response very closely, we will continue to see progress toward full compliance.
C. Domestic Violence Uniform Patrol Assessment
1. Methodology
The Monitoring Team reviewed a random sample of incidents selected from Districtlevel responses dispatched as domestic violence incidents. Our review covered calls for service from May through August 2015. We selected this period because the NOPD’s new domestic violence policy had been issued to all personnel in April 2015. The 29-question checklist we used in our assessment is found as Attachment 3 to this Report. The majority of our assessment was conducted off-site by reviewing police reports and Body Worn Camera (BWCs) recordings.

13

Additionally, newly-appointed Deputy Chief Paul Noel implemented a new process requiring NOPD call-

backs on all DV-related “gone on arrival” cases.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 51 of 100
Page 51 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

2. Overview Findings From The May 2015 Review
NOPD received 1,363 domestic violence related calls in May 2015, and the Monitoring Team randomly selected 41 of those calls for evaluation. Of the 41 calls audited, 18 calls were cleared UNF (unfounded), representing 43.9% of the total. While none of these calls have EPR reports in the files (since EPRs are not required with a UNF classification), many of them have BWC recordings. Our review of the BWC recordings showed that many “unfounded” clearances were not properly coded as “unfounded.” In actuality, many of the “unfounded” calls resulted from a delayed response where the complainant was no longer on the scene or did not answer the door or a call back by communications. Obviously, this is an improper use of the “unfounded” classification, which has been brought to the attention of NOPD leadership. Such calls should be marked “gone on arrival,” rather than “unfounded.”14
Our review of NOPD’s May 2015 call responses revealed 16 calls (39.02 %) were handled properly, with clear evidence on the BWCs and a correctly documented EPR report. In contrast, seven calls (17%) out of the 41 raised concerns to the Monitoring Team. The four summaries below illustrate the nature of our Team’s concerns:
 One incident was a third call by a victim related to an ongoing DV. In May, the victim’s door was kicked down by a former boyfriend and it was cleared unfounded with no indication of why, or if anyone responded. Later in May, the victim stated she had called the police, but no officer responded to the call. On the third call for service, the suspect threatened by text message to set the complainant’s house on fire.
 One call was dispatched as an aggravated battery. A review of the dispatch log revealed this to be a domestic violence incident. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate an EPR or BWC recording of this incident.
 One case involved a victim who stated she was choked by the suspect, but the case report included no evidence of a risk assessment having been conducted or an arrest having been made.
 In one case, an officer responded to a call in a hotel of a man beating a woman holding a baby. The male subject had left the hotel, but the female victim was still upstairs in a hotel room. The responding officer spoke to the victim by phone provided by the desk clerk and asked if the victim was okay. The officer then left the scene, telling the desk clerk there was nothing she could do if the victim didn’t

14

Subsequent to this reporting period, NOPD Superintendent Harrison took prompt action to address this

issue, and NOPD reports unfounded calls have dramatically decreased.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 52 of 100
Page 52 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

want to cooperate. The officer never attempted to view the woman and child to confirm they were okay.
Each of the foregoing concerns (and other similar concerns) was relayed to the NOPD Compliance Bureau and/or the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau for follow-up.
3. Overview Findings From The August 2015 Review
NOPD received 1,307 domestic violence related calls in August 2015, and the Monitoring Team randomly selected 39 of those calls for review. In five of those cases, we evaluated the responding officer’s conduct as professional and compliant, and brought those officers’ names to the attention of the NOPD. Twelve calls were cleared as “unfounded,” which, as described above, is cause for great concern.
All in all, the Monitoring Team found more cause for commendation than criticism. We identified numerous examples of NOPD officers acting in full or near full compliance with the Consent Decree. Some of these compliance areas include the following:
 We identified Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage in all cases.
 Officers made proper contact with a supervisor and/or responded with two officers to all Code 2 calls.15
 In all but one case, we saw clear evidence that officers either made contact with the parties or sufficiently attempted to make contact.
 Officers consistently separated children from the parties.
 We identified no cases where inappropriate “dual arrests” were made.
 We identified no violations of policy in cases where the suspect was not on the scene.
 Officers made the required victim referrals to the NOFJC in all but one case.
 Officers distributed the required victim’s rights brochures in all but one case.
 The files documented proper supervisory approvals in all cases involving a signal change.

15

A “Code 2” call is an emergency call where lights and sirens are authorized.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 53 of 100 Page 53 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 EPR’s properly documented observation of the scene.
NOPD deserves commendation for these very positive findings.
Four of the 39 calls we reviewed, however, raised concerns. Summaries of those four cases are presented here:
 One incident, involving an ex-girlfriend allegedly harassing the complainant at his front door, was cleared as “unfounded.” The BWC, however, was turned off with the officer still in the cruiser, and there is no indication the officer ever got out of the car.
 One incident involved a prior boyfriend who allegedly fired a weapon at the victim’s house when she would not come to the door. At disposition the call was changed from a 37D (aggravated assault -domestic) to a 56D (Domestic Criminal Charge). There was no supplement in the file as to whether a warrant was sought or secured.
 One incident involved a female caller indicating there was no physical confrontation and the argument was verbal only. During a review of the BWCs, however, the Monitoring Team clearly heard the male subject stating “she hit me three times.” This statement should have been accurately documented and further investigated, but was not.
 One report indicates there was “no witness and no physical altercation took place,” however, the officer further reported the female victim showed the officer a mark left on her finger when the male subject took a knife from her when she was cooking.
Each of these cases promptly was brought to the attention of the NOPD for immediate follow-up.
4. Specific Aggregated Findings From May and August
A selected number of the audit questions are depicted below with graphs added to show the numbers represented by the responses in May and August.
a. Due Caution and Reasonable Care
There were three calls with non-compliant safety issues in May and zero non-compliant issues in August. This finding is significant. In June 2015, an NOPD officer was killed in the line of duty while interacting with a domestic violence suspect. As a result of this incident,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 54 of 100
Page 54 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

additional training on searching and handcuffing techniques was conducted agency-wide immediately after his death.

6. Generally, did the officer(s) exercise due caution and reasonable care in providing for the safety of any officer(s) and parties involved?

27 20

3

2

May August

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

It is clear by these findings and by observing the BWCs post-June that patrol officers received a clear message on the importance of officer safety – particularly when handling high risk calls such as domestic violence crimes. While three non-compliant cases do not seem like many, any lack of caution during a domestic dispute may lead to serious injury or death of a civilian or an officer. This section will be closely monitored, as complacency can once again occur and have tragic consequences.
b. Separation of the Parties
As depicted in the following graph, it appears that officers, with only a few exceptions, understand the importance of separating the parties, not only for the safety of all participants but also to reach a more accurate understanding of any conflicting versions of the incident.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 55 of 100
Page 55 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

8. Did the officer(s) separate the parties?
19

11

12

7

May August

2 1

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

As required in the Domestic Violence policy, officers must secure the scene for the safety of the officers and the parties. In cases where the Monitoring Team found non-compliance, officers were observed interviewing both parties without separating them. At times the parties continued to argue in the presence of the officers, which often can lead to additional violence and unnecessary use of force by the officers. By separating the occupants and the parties, the officers are better able to assess what has occurred during the dispute and collect appropriate statements and evidence. The Monitoring Team observed a clear improvement from May to August, which likely can be attributed to the recent enhanced training.
c. Assessment for Injuries
There were three cases in May where officer(s) failed to investigate or document an assessment of injuries. As depicted in the following graph, by August, in all of the cases audited, except for the unfounded clearances, there was evidence of injury assessments, where applicable.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 56 of 100
Page 56 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

11. Did the officer(s) assess for injuries (obvious or not readily apparent)?
19

13

9

8

3

May August

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

The Monitoring Team determined that in three of the audited cases, all occurring in May, the officers made no clear attempt to determine whether anyone was injured as a result of the domestic incident. In most cases the Monitoring Team either heard the officers ask about injuries or observed them assessing injuries. In the non-compliant cases the officers also did not document injuries or the lack of injuries in a report. Clearly, this is an important element of a domestic violence case and when it does not occur it is a violation of policy and an incomplete investigation.
5. Risk Assessment
As indicated above, officers are required to ask “risk assessment” questions when responding to certain domestic violence calls. These questions are important indicators of the seriousness of the domestic violence situation and abuse history. As depicted in the below graph, patrol officers documented the four risk questions in their reports the majority of the time, and in most cases when they did not document the risk questions, the questions nonetheless were asked, and were addressed in a supplement when a DVU detective later was assigned.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 57 of 100
Page 57 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

12. Did the officer(s) conduct a Risk Assessment (4 Questions)?
15 14
12

6 4
1

May August

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

The DV policy officially was issued on April 5, 2015 and training on this requirement is being conducted through in-service training. The Monitoring Team found that compliance with the policy improved from May to August, as additional officers were trained, as the requirement was enforced by supervisors and as it was re-iterated by DVU detectives while approving patrol reports. As indicated above, there were four cases of non-compliance (10%) in May and only one case of non-compliance (3%) in August.
6. Primary Aggressor
The “predominant” or “primary” aggressor is the person who poses the most serious ongoing threat. If the officer determines both parties used illegal force or took illegal action, and neither party acted in self-defense, the officer shall conduct a predominant aggressor assessment.
In making a predominant aggressor determination, the officer must look for the person who, by his or her actions in the incident and through history and previous actions, has caused the most physical harm, fear and intimidation against the other, considering all the evidence, including:
 What each party’s purpose is in using violence;
 Evidence from complainants and witnesses;
 Extent of personal injuries;
 Threat of future injury;
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 58 of 100
Page 58 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Prior incidents of domestic violence;
 Future welfare of any minors; and
 Who uses the highest level of violence in the relationship. As depicted in the following graph, there were three incidents of non-compliance (7%) in May, and only one incident of non-compliance (3%) in August 2015.
13. Did the officer(s) attempt to determine the predominant aggressor?
17 18

8 4

3 1

May August
1

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

In the non-compliant cases, the DVU supervisor was made aware of the deficiency and the officer’s supervisor was made aware of the need for additional training. The first responders now have access to this information on a “drop down” screen on their computers when filing a report. Hopefully this also will aid in compliance.
7. Discouraging Victim
There were three cases in May where the Monitoring Team determined the officer’s comments could be interpreted as “discouraging” to the reporting party. It is reassuring to report there were no cases of discouraging remarks in the August case reviews.
8. Preservation of Document Evidence
Initial responders are expected to collect, preserve, and document all relevant physical evidence including evidence substantiating the victim’s injuries and the attack, as well as evidence recording the crime scene, in accordance with agency policy and the Consent Decree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 59 of 100 Page 59 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As depicted in the following graph, there were four non-compliant cases in May and only one non-compliant case in August. As officers adjust to the improved and enhanced requirements of the new policy, and with training and counseling, the Monitoring Team anticipates evidence collection will consistently will improve.
28. Did the officer(s) collect, preserve, and document evidence?
25

11

10

4

1

1

May August

Compliant

Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

Collection and documentation of evidence is important to any case, but particularly important for proceeding with charges or obtaining convictions. Domestic violence cases often result in one person’s version against another’s. When evidence is solicited effectively, it can make a difference as to the proper end result. Domestic violence offenders often develop a pattern. The initial officer’s report lays the foundation for each subsequent intervener. Therefore, it is critical that evidence is obtained and documented in every DV case. In those cases where the officer did not properly document evidence, the supervisor was advised of the deficiency.
9. Professional Response
As the following graph indicates, there was improvement from May to August with regard to a professional response. In May there were five cases where the Monitoring Team determined the response was not victim-oriented and therefore could have been improved. In August there was only one specific case noted for improvement, even though there were a total of four cases that needed additional follow-up.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 60 of 100
Page 60 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

29. Was the officer’s investigation an overall pro-active, victimoriented and professional response?

26 20

Compliant

5 1
Noncompliant Not Applicable

Unknown

May August

The Monitoring Team found most of the patrol officers to be empathetic, supportive, and patient during their response to domestic violence cases. There is clear improvement in officer behavior from the audit of May calls for service to the calls audited in August. In each case where there was a deficiency, the DVU supervisor made it clear to the Commander of the District that these calls are being monitored and that their officers must adhere to policy and procedures. All Commanders are reported to be in support of the DV policy changes and are “on-board” with attending to any deficiencies. Even in cases where the officer failed to obtain all required information, it was generally determined and noticed that officers were acting professionally and were focused and attentive to the victim’s needs. The Monitoring Team expects continued improvement in the overall response to domestic violence cases with the enhanced in-service training and policy enforcement.
D. Assessment of Unfounded Domestic Violence Calls
1. May Findings
A random audit of DV calls for service resulted in 41 calls audited out of the 1,363 calls dispatched with a domestic violence category in May 2015. Of the 41 calls reviewed, eighteen (3.9%) were “unfounded” by patrol officers. The response times were reviewed for patterns, trends, and/or abnormalities. A summary of our observations in those eighteen cases follows:
 The shortest time held before dispatch was 2 minutes (1 case).
 The longest time a call was held was 15 hours, 13 minutes.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 61 of 100
Page 61 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Eleven (27%) of the cases were held in excess of one hour before dispatch.
 Three of the eleven cases held in excess of one hour before dispatch do not indicate the officer’s arrival time.
 Twelve of the eighteen cases reviewed were closed by the arriving officer in less than 10 minutes: eight of the 12 in less than 5 minutes, 5 in 2 minutes or less.
 One case listed as an “aggravated battery” was held for 15 hours and 13 minutes before it was dispatched in spite of the more serious classification of “aggravated battery.” The officer arrived within three minutes following dispatch and the call was closed by the officer in less than one minute. The obvious assumption being, in spite of the quick response on the part of the officer, the lengthy delay in dispatching negated the likelihood of the officer successfully obtaining further information or gathering any items of evidentiary value.
Clearly, there is a wide variance in the time it takes for a call to be dispatched that is disturbing and unacceptable, from a reasonable two minutes to an unacceptably long 15 hours, with many calls held over an hour. On the other hand, it is encouraging to note that once received, the responding officer(s) generally are quick to respond. Arrival times for officers on DV calls range from less than 1 minute to a maximum of 17 minutes with the average arrival time following dispatch of the call to be 6.125 minutes.16
2. August Findings
A random audit of DV calls for service resulted in 39 calls being audited out of the 1,307 calls dispatched with a domestic violence category in August 2015. Of the 39 calls reviewed, twelve (30%) were unfounded by patrol officers. The August rate of unfounded calls was lower than the final number in May. The response times were reviewed for patterns, trends, and/or abnormalities.
 The shortest time held before dispatch was .5 minutes.
 The longest time held before dispatch was 7 hours 48 minutes.
 Three of the 12 cases were held in excess of 1 hour before dispatch.

16

The data here cannot be applied to NOPD’s response times overall, which, depending on the time, day, and

district, can be extremely long. It is not uncommon for members of the Monitoring Team, while riding

with officers at midnight, to see multiple calls holding since noon.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 62 of 100
Page 62 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Eight of the 12 cases reviewed were closed by the arriving officer in less than 10 minutes: 2 in less than 5 minutes.
 Three of the cases reviewed do not reflect the officer’s arrival time.
 Arrival times for officers range from 5 minutes to 27 minutes with the average being 5.83 minutes.
In comparing May reports with those reviewed for the month of August, the data indicate officers are responding more quickly. They are also spending considerably greater time on scene prior to closing the call: 21.4 minutes per call for August reports as compared with only 8.8 minutes per call in May reports. The Monitoring Team will be examining these changes further over the coming quarter.
3. May/August Conclusions
The Monitoring Team observed a general progression of improvement in the NOPD’s response to domestic violence from May to August 2015. Not only in terms of time getting to the scene and time spent on the scene, but in the handling of the call by the officers on the scene. By and large, we observed many instances of empathetic officers handling domestic violence calls with patience, tolerance, and professionalism.
NOPD’s DVU leadership and the Compliance Bureau have worked diligently to incorporate the elements of the City’s Blueprint for Safety model into the DV policy and DVU protocols officially issued in April 2015. It is evident DVU has been working closely with all District Commanders on deficiencies discovered in patrol officer’s cases. DVU detectives are actively training uniformed officers on the policy. Supervisors and District Commanders are responding positively and promptly when deficiencies are noted in their assigned officers’ response. The excellent relationship between the DVU and the District Attorney’s Office is evident. DA Karen Avery reports a positive improvement with reports and investigations under the new DV policy and enhanced training.
Staffing issues, coupled with operational inefficiencies and institutional roadblocks, negatively impact the Field Operations Bureau’s (Patrol) efficiency in responding to domestic violence calls, as is evident in the section of this report dealing with unfounded clearances. Additionally, by all reports from NOFJC personnel and SVS staff, the DVU is under-staffed and not always available to follow-up cases in a timely manner. Staffing of the DVU continues to be a non-compliance issue with no encouraging movement toward assigning a sufficient number of detectives.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 63 of 100
Page 63 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Moreover, it is evident that DV calls are being held too long by Communications, most likely due, in part at least, to a shortage of available officers,17 and it is more likely than not that there was a good reason for the original call to the police that is not being adequately reported because of the delayed police response. This lack of a report is a significant problem with domestic disturbance incidents because of the importance of reporting each event to collect the “history” of the abuser. The other significant concern is that the caller may not call back when the abuse occurs a second time because in his or her eyes the police never showed up.
The Monitoring Team remains optimistic due to the improvements we are seeing in the agency’s response to domestic violence. Officers are receiving better training and they are fully aware of the ramifications of not handling these calls properly within the requirements of their directives and the Consent Decree. The tragic loss of an officer in June, resulting from a domestic violence incident, gave additional significance to officer and victim safety during this assessment period. The enhanced NOFJC relationship with the DVU, coupled with the administrative assistance of the Compliance Bureau staff and the District Attorney, has improved the capability of measuring and improving the Department’s overall performance. Consequently, the bar is raised and the NOPD is now expected to be a model agency in response to domestic violence.

17

As we have said previously, the number of officers on patrol is just one factor in response time. The

deployment of those officers, the efficiency of roll calls, and the effectiveness of sergeants in moving

officers off cleared scenes, among other things, all are equally important factors.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 64 of 100
Page 64 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. RECRUITMENT
The Monitoring Team issued a Special Report in August 2015 in which we commended NOPD for several important improvements to its new officer selection program, but also criticized the Department for having made less progress in the area of developing a selection process that is smartly tailored to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. Specifically, the Monitoring Team identified several shortcomings in the NOPD’s selection process, including an outdated multiple-choice test and written exam, and an overly structured interview process. Since our findings, NOPD has been working closely with Louisiana Tech University to develop a new, compliant multiple choice test and written exam. The Louisiana Tech consultants currently are in the process of conducting a “job study,” which, according to experts, is a necessary predicate to any credible entrance exam. Once the job study is complete, Louisiana Tech will work closely with NOPD to develop the new selection tools, which, subject to approval by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice, will be rolled out as rapidly as possible.
Concurrent with NOPD’s work on its multiple choice test and written exam, the Department also is in discussions with the Monitoring Team regarding how best to restructure the panel interview process to make it more effective. As we reported previously, the current format of the interview process is overly structured:
Unfortunately, the current process is designed to remove the subjective nature of the interview process and take away the interviewer’s ability to ask targeted questions, follow-up on partial answers, and probe the candidate for more information. This process, because it stresses rigidity and removes subjective decision making, is defendable in a legal challenge (by an unsuccessful candidate), but it is not designed to determine the best candidates: it is more likely to identify a “consensus” candidate. To be clear, the Monitoring Team is not against a “structured interview” process. We recognize such a process is used in many departments. Rather, as discussed below, the Monitoring Team objects to the unwillingness of the NOPD to allow for limited but meaningful probes and follow-up questions.
Following multiple discussions with NOPD, the Department of Justice, and the Court, Judge Morgan directed NOPD to revise its current interview process to remedy the shortcomings
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 65 of 100 Page 65 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
identified by the Monitoring Team and the Department’s own HR experts.18 The parties and the Monitoring Team currently are working together to restructure the current interview process.

18

As noted in our August 2015 Special Report, NOPD made positive, strategic moves by inviting private

sector Human Resource directors and knowledgeable individuals to participate in the interview process.

The Monitoring Team has been extremely impressed with the Human Resource experts the City has

engaged.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 66 of 100
Page 66 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING
A. Academy and Training Generally
Our prior Report noted progress in certain areas of the Police Academy, but noted the Department “has a long way to go to come into full compliance with the Consent Decree.” Among other things, the Monitoring Team noted the following regarding the Academy’s progress:
NOPD’s training program still needs a lot of work. The Academy continues to operate without approved lesson plans, a meaningful evaluation of its current instructors, and a comprehensive strategic plan to remedy known shortcomings. The quality of the instruction, the materials, and the curriculum also remains inconsistent. While, as noted above, we have seen recent progress in all these areas, more work needs to be done, and it needs to be done faster.
Unfortunately, while progress continues to be made in some areas, most of these shortcomings persist.
On the positive side, the Academy leadership has put in significant time improving lesson plans, conducting a “needs assessment,” and preparing a draft of a 2016 Master Training Plan (“MTP”), and there is much to like about its work product. But there also is much with which to take issue. The lesson plans still are not complete, the needs assessment still needs work, and the Master Training Plan leaves out significant substantive elements and Consent Decree requirements.
Since the MTP is the critical foundational document upon which the Department’s 2016 curriculum must stand, it is worth drilling down into that document here. While the Department certainly put much work into the MTP, and, as noted above, there is much to like about it, here is a summary of areas that still need work.
 The Plan does not identify teaching objectives for any of the courses planned for 2016. Without teaching objectives, neither the Monitoring Team nor DOJ (nor NOPD for that matter) can evaluate whether the right subjects are being taught and whether they are being taught correctly.
 The Consent Decree requires the substantive involvement of the Training Advisory Committee in the preparation of the MTP. However, it does not appear the TAC had any meaningful role in the development of the draft MTP.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 67 of 100
Page 67 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 The MTP is based upon an incomplete “needs assessment.”

 The current proposed curriculum is delivered in blocks rather than in a logical progression with each new skill or concept building upon previously learned knowledge. As an example, an effective curriculum would have officers take a “legal aspects of search and seizure” course before taking a course on the proper tactics for conducting traffic stops or field interviews. The proposed MTP, however, does not organize training in this logical fashion.

 The MTP did not make clear that the concepts of procedural justice and deescalation would be incorporated into each Academy course offering. These concepts, however, are critically important for promoting constitutional policing.
Additionally, the draft MTP states that “[w]ith limited training hours available to Department personnel, the delivery of all desired courses will not be achievable.” Obviously, Consent Decree requirements cannot be set aside because of purported limits on available training hours. All courses required by the Consent Decree must be included in the Department’s training program.19
The Monitoring Team has shared its ongoing Academy concerns with NOPD leadership and with the Court, and, to its credit, the Department took meaningful action. Specifically, the Academy recently took the following actions:

 To ensure the problems at the Academy receive the highest level of attention within the Department, Superintendent Harrison promoted Commander John Thomas (now Deputy Chief John Thomas) from the Compliance Bureau to head the Department’s Management Services Bureau, with specific direction to focus his attention on improving the Academy.20 The direct and constant attention of a Deputy Chief is a welcomed improvement; and one which, based upon the Monitoring Team’s two years of working with the Compliance Bureau, we believe will pay big near-term dividends.

 To facilitate the development of the Academy’s curriculum, lesson plans, and to ensure the quality of teaching is improved, the Department sought and received approval from the City and the Civil Service Commission to hire an “Academy

19

Following the Monitoring Team raising concerns regarding the completeness of the Master Training Plan,

the Academy leadership has worked closely with the Monitoring Team to revise and supplement the Plan.

NOPD reports the new MTP includes all required training.

20

The former head of the Management Services Bureau, Stephanie Landry, who has been a positive force of

reform within the Department, will continue to be responsible for the Department’s financial, budgetary,

HR, and staffing matters, now reporting to Chief Thomas.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 68 of 100
Page 68 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Director” with a PhD who will take charge of all academic-related aspects of the Academy. The new Director will report directly to Chief Thomas.
 To better assess its current instructor capabilities, the Academy engaged the University of New Orleans to conduct independent, academic evaluations of all current instructors. The University professionals who have agreed to perform this service will evaluate each instructor’s grasp of the subject matter, ability to communicate clearly, use of adult learning techniques, and ability to inspire students.
The Monitoring Team is hopeful these changes will have the intended consequence of expediting progress at the Academy. The importance of an effective training program within a police department cannot be overstated. As the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing recognized, “as our nation becomes more pluralistic and the scope of law enforcement’s responsibilities expands, the need for expanded and more effective training has become critical.” Indeed, an extremely high percentage of unfortunate law enforcement incidents – be they police uses of force against citizens or citizen uses of force against officers – can be traced back to gaps in training. To put it bluntly, an “adequate” training program does not cut it here. Officers and citizens deserve nothing less than an “excellent” training program. It is against this background that the Monitoring Team continues to focus on this critical issue.
B. Community Oriented Policing Training
Paragraph 226 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD provide eight hours of structured annual in-service training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods and skills for all officers, including supervisors, managers, and executives. The Monitoring Team reviewed NOPD’s annual in-service training on Community Oriented Policing in November 2015, and identified significant problems with the training. First, the course was not taught by the instructor who developed the course material. Second, the course was being taught without a compliant lesson plan. Third, the course was cut short by 45 minutes to fit in a subject wholly unrelated to community oriented policing. Fourth, the course relied on outdated and inappropriate materials.
With respect to the substance of the course, the Consent Decree sets forth multiple specific strategies and concepts that must be included in a compliant Community Oriented Policing training program. The Monitoring Team’s review of the November 2015 training revealed NOPD current training program meets almost none of the requirements set forth in the Consent Decree. In short, NOPD’s in-service community oriented policing training is not compliant with the Consent Decree, and, in the third year of the Consent Decree, patrol officers very troublingly still are left without proper training on this critical topic.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 69 of 100
Page 69 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

According to the NOPD Academy, 2016 Community Oriented Policing Training is proposed as an eight-hour course. Further, the applicable Lesson Plan is being updated and will be reviewed by the Monitoring Team (and the Department of Justice) prior to the first course being taught. Among other things, the Monitoring Team will be looking to see that community members – either through PCABS, Neighborhood Associations, local universities, or the like – have been engaged by the Academy in the design of the 2016 course. Further, the Monitoring Team will be looking to make sure the “Pillars of Procedural Justice” are properly and emphatically included and reinforced in all Community Oriented Policing in-service training.
C. FTO Academy Training
The Monitoring Team observes Academy training, and shares its feedback with Academy management, on a regular basis. In October 2015, among other things, the Monitoring Team observed NOPD Field Training Officer (“FTO”) training.
1. Adult Learning and Problem Solving
The adult learning and problem solving course was taught by full-time Academy staff member Sergeant Rebecca Easley. This is an important topic as current research makes clear using adult learning techniques simply is a better way to teach adults. An article in the FBI Bulletin described it this way:
Although adult and youth learning are governed by many of the same basic concepts, research now shows that adults differ from youths in many ways that influence their learning. Adults differ distinctly in terms of such factors as motivation, interest, values, attitudes, physical and mental abilities, and learning histories. The conditions imposed by these differences make adult learners a unique audience and form the basis for the principles of adult learning and for the instructional methodologies tailored to the characteristics of adult learners. With this in mind, law enforcement instructors, supervisors, and administrators who not only design training courses but also select those provided by other sources should inquire as to whether, as well as, how these courses use adult learning methodologies. Such knowledge can help law enforcement managers find the most suitable training for their employees.21

21

Kennedy, Ralph, “Applying Principles of Adult Learning – The Key To More Effective Training Programs,”

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72:4 (April 2003).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 70 of 100
Page 70 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
It is for this reason the Consent Decree demands the Academy “ensure that a variety of adult learning techniques, scenario-based training, and problem-solving practices, in addition to traditional lecture formats, are incorporated into all training.” (CD 256)
This FTO course involved a presentation, class discussion, a video, and significant student participation. At one point, for a component called “teaching instead of dictating,” Sergeant Easley broke the class into smaller groups to maximize active student involvement. While we would have liked to have seen greater focus on the “problem solving” side of the adult learning/problem solving equation, Sergeant Easley exhibited command of the subject matter and presented the material well. She taught the course in an organized manner, clearly identified the course objectives at the outset, and applied, appropriately enough, adult learning techniques. All in all, we were impressed by the course and the manner in which it was taught.
2. Every Officer A Leader
The second FTO course we observed this period focused on supervision and management, and was titled “Every Officer a Leader.” The course was taught by Academy Commander Richard Williams. Commander Williams clearly described the goals of the course at the outset, and engaged the students early on by discussing failures in leadership they had observed over the course of their careers.
Commander Williams used adult learning techniques by involving the class in discussion and by sharing his own experiences. The class later broke into small groups to review information and to prepare points of discussion that were later discussed among the entire group.
Among other things, the course discussed the needs of effective leadership, including the ability to communicate, the ability to prepare, the importance of after-action reviews, and the importance of developmental counseling. The course also focused on the criticality of empathy in connection with community policing. Commander Williams promoted a meaningful dialogue regarding professionalism, command presence, resiliency, mental agility, and competency.
The course also spent significant time focusing on the importance of working with the community to build positive community/police relationships, and conveying this approach to the recruits the FTOs mentor. The discussion of building community trust was followed by a discussion of communication and active listening, as well as a discussion about ethics, which covered several items relating to the Consent Decree. Commander Williams used various scenarios to drive home his points in each of these areas.
In summary, the course was well organized and well taught. The attendees were receptive to the training, and the instructor (Commander Williams) was enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and applied effective adult learning techniques. The attendees actively
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 71 of 100
Page 71 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

participated in the course through involvement in group discussions, offering experiences, and providing personal thoughts on various matters.
D. FTO Program
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement a Field Training Program. (CD 275) In addition to the Academy courses regarding the Field Training Program, the Monitoring Team also reviewed specific elements of the program itself. Our findings, in summary form, are set forth below.
1. Paragraph 275
Paragraph 275 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop and implement a fieldtraining program for recruit academy graduates that comports with NOPD’s written training plan … .” The Consent Decree further provides the program “shall follow academy training and shall be at least 16 weeks.” The Department is in partial compliance with this requirement. The Department does have a field training program, but lacks a written training plan.22 The training program is 16 weeks in length and follows the Academy training as required. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate field-training performance evaluations at the Academy in order further to evaluate the quality of the program.
2. Paragraph 276
Consent Decree paragraph 276, among other things, requires NOPD to develop policies and procedures on field training that delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs and Field Training Sergeants. Paragraph 276 further permits only “highly qualified officers” to serve as FTOs and Field Training Sergeants (“FTSs”), and that both comply with “formal eligibility criteria.” The Department is in partial compliance with these requirements. The Department policy does delineate the criteria and methodology for selecting FTOs, but it does not for the FTSs. There exist partially established formal eligibility criteria for FTOs, but, again, not for FTSs. All FTO appointments are subject to review for reappointment at the Training Division Commander’s discretion, and District commanders have discretion, upon consultation with the Training Academy staff, to remove an FTO from the FTO program.
3. Paragraph 277
Consent Decree paragraph 277 requires, among other things, that “all current and new FTOs and Field Training sergeants receive at least 40 hours of initial supervisory-level training and annual in-service training in the following areas: management and supervision; communityoriented policing; effective problem solving techniques; and field communication.” The

22

NOPD reports the written training plan will be incorporated into the Academy’s 2016 Master Training Plan.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 72 of 100
Page 72 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Department is in partial compliance with this requirement. NOPD’s FTSs have attended supervisory training, but the FTOs have not. Moreover, several field training supervisors have not attended the FTO training as required, including sergeants from the First, Fourth, and Eighth Police Districts.23
Some FTSs have received the required 40 hours of training. While NOPD reports all FTOs have received the 40 hours of initial training, the Monitoring Team could locate no documentation supporting that representation or demonstrating that the required courses were provided. Some FTSs have received the required annual training, and NOPD reports all FTOs have received the annual training, but here again there is no documentation available to review. Moreover, some new applications for FTO contained officer performance evaluations as required, but all did not.
4. Paragraph 278
Paragraph 278 requires “that recruits in the field-training program are trained in a variety of geographic areas within New Orleans; in a variety of shifts; and with several FTOs.” The Department is in compliance with this requirement. The Monitoring Team’s assessment revealed each recruit in the FTO program worked various districts during the training program, various shifts during the training program, and with various officers during the training program.
5. Paragraph 279
Paragraph 279 requires NOPD “to review and evaluate the performance of FTOs and Field Training Sergeants, with re-certification dependent on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Training Division staff.” The Department is not yet in compliance with this requirement. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate performance evaluations for each FTO at the Academy. Nor were we able to locate performance evaluations for FTSs at the Academy. The lack of such evaluation likely is due to the Academy not having input into FTO or FTS performance evaluations. Indeed, NOPD has no system for any Academy staff to provide feedback regarding FTO or FTS performance.
We also found gaps in the current Academy evaluation system. For example, one officer was revoked as an FTO, but the demotion was not listed in the evaluation system.

23

Subsequent to this reporting period, the Department produced additional documentation supporting the

Department’s compliance with paragraph 279. The Monitoring Team is reviewing those materials and will

update the status of this paragraph in its next report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 73 of 100
Page 73 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

6. Paragraph 280

Paragraph 280 obligates NOPD to “create a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy, and suggestions for changes to Academy training based upon their experience in the FTO program.” NOPD further must “consider feedback and to document its response, including the rationale behind any responsive action taken or decision to take no action.” The Department is not yet in compliance with this requirement. NOPD does have a mechanism for recruits to provide confidential feedback regarding the quality of their field training. Evaluations are completed by recruits after each field training session and the Curriculum Director conducts focus sessions with groups of recruits at the end of their Academy training session and at the end of their field training.

The Monitoring Team observed the Curriculum Director meeting with groups of officers completing their field training program. The Director sought to determine if there were areas the Academy could have provided better training. He included the resulting information in a “needs assessment” for the Academy, which will be used to facilitate the completion of the Academy’s 2016 Master Training Plan.

Notably, the recruit evaluation of the FTO program does not evaluate whether the field training they received was consistent with the Academy classroom training. However, the issue was discussed with the recruits as part of the Curriculum Director’s group meeting.

7. Paragraph 281

Paragraph 281 requires NOPD “to review and revise its FTO participation policy to establish and implement a program that effectively attracts the best FTO candidates.” The Department has taken steps toward compliance with this requirement. The Department has revised its FTO/FTS participation policy to better attract the best FTO candidates. The policies still are under review by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team, however.

The Department uses a 5% pay incentive to attract FTOs. The benefit is paid even when
not training a recruit officer. Another benefit is the recognition an officer receives by attaching the chevrons of a field training officer. The Department states they now use KSAs24 to advertise throughout the Department for field training officers, require at least a PO225 and have four years
of experience to apply for the position, have a letter of recommendation from the commander,
conduct an interview panel to choose FTOs, and complete FTO evaluations to retain the best
candidates.

24

The term “KSA” refers to “knowledge, skill, and ability.” KSAs simply identify the specific prerequisites

for a given job.

25

PO2 refers to a patrol officer grade.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 74 of 100
Page 74 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

8. Paragraph 282
Paragraph 282 requires NOPD’s Training Advisory Committee to conduct “a study of the feasibility of implementing a Police Training Officer model that would incorporate communityand problem-oriented policing principles, and problem-based learning methods of teaching.” The Consent Decree provides further that, if feasible, “NOPD and the City agree to implement this program.” The Department is not yet in compliance with this requirement. The NOPD Compliance Bureau and Academy personnel state there has not been a study of the feasibility of implementing a police training officer model. The subject has been discussed at a regular Training Advisory Committee (“TAC”) meeting. Some work has been done with the TAC, but not in regard to field training.
E. In-Service Training
The Monitoring Team reviewed the Department’s 2015 in-service training program over the course of this reporting period, and found the Department to be not yet in compliance with the Consent Decree. The Department is aware of the gaps in its in-service training program and is working to remedy those gaps in its 2016 program. Nonetheless, here is a summary of our 2015 findings.
1. Paragraph 283
Consent Decree paragraph 283 requires NOPD “to develop and implement a mandatory annual in-service training program that comports with NOPD’s written training plan and the requirements” of the Consent Decree. Among other things, NOPD must “provide at least 64 hours of [annual] in-service training to each officer pursuant to this program.” The Consent Decree further provides the in-service training must “be comprised of a 40-hour core curriculum and 24 hours of additional elective training.” The Department is in partial compliance with this requirement.26 The Department established a training curriculum of 64 hours of training for officers (24 hours of which takes place as roll call training).
With respect to officers actually receiving the required hours of training (as opposed to the curriculum stating what should happen), NOPD is unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The Department was unable to provide the Monitoring Team with records sufficient to show which officers had and which had not received the requisite hours of training. Moreover, certificates of completion are not consistently maintained by the Academy. NOPD has purchased a new software system (PowerDMS), which will allow the Academy to track all officer training at a central location in the future. If used properly, PowerDMS should go a long way toward helping NOPD come into compliance with this paragraph.

26

NOPD reports that the forthcoming revised 2016 Master Training Plan will remedy this gap.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 75 of 100 Page 75 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Paragraph 284 Paragraph 284 requires NOPD “to create core-training requirements for the following positions: officers; command staff; lieutenants and sergeants; detectives; narcotics investigators; and specialized units.” In this context, “core training” refers to non-elective training. The Department is in partial compliance with this requirement. While the Department provides core training to officers, command staff, lieutenants, and sergeants, it does not currently offer core training for narcotics investigators, detectives, or specialized units. This is not to say these units do not provide training to their members. But the training provided is not coordinated through the Academy, is not part of a Department-wide training plan, and is not supported by written lesson plans.
3. Paragraph 285 Paragraph 285 requires NOPD “to plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive rollcall training program.” The Consent Decree provides that the “roll-call training shall be provided at the beginning of each shift,” and shall “include special topics selected by the Training Division Commander or District Commanders that address officer safety, readiness, community concerns, or departmental procedural matters.” The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement. The Department has a roll call training policy (404) and a regular training policy (208) that includes roll call training. Moreover, the Monitoring Team frequently observes roll calls during the various shifts, and consistently sees a healthy discussion of new policies, safety issues, and community concerns. The substance of the roll call training, however, is not maintained by the districts in an auditable fashion, which makes it difficult for the Monitoring Team (as well as for the district Commanders) to ensues the full breadth of issues are consistently being discussed.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 76 of 100
Page 76 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
As noted in our last Quarterly Report:
After a slow start, NOPD now has a full-time Officer Assistance and Support (“OA&S”) program manager. Led by a civilian mental health professional, Cecile Tebo, the program will fill a huge gap in the support NOPD historically has given its officers. While much work still needs to be done in this area to develop and roll out the actual programs supporting officers, the appointment of Ms. Tebo represents a material step forward.
Since Ms. Tebo’s appointment, 49 officers and/or family members have accessed NOPD’s “Officer Assistance Program” (“OAP”) to receive in-house services and/or referrals to outside professionals/agencies for mental health care. This figure includes officers, family members, and significant others. Further, Ms. Tebo’s office was meaningfully involved in providing counseling services following the recent shootings of two NOPD officers, as well as three additional tragic incidents involving NOPD officers and family members.
With respect to the structure of the OAP program, NOPD has prepared written policies and procedures, which currently are under review by the Department of Justice. The Department also supplemented the OAP staff with a licensed clinical social worker in November 2015. In contrast to this progress, the OAP program has yet to identify suitable office space outside of NOPD to provide officers the privacy they deserve when taking advantage of these important services.
In addition to the foregoing, the Monitoring Team has observed the following progress being made in this area:
 Ms. Tebo continues to facilitate and participate in weekly in-service training. She provides weekly 15-30 minute sessions at the Academy to advise on services available to officers and their families.
 Ms. Tebo is in the process of developing a Peer Counseling (peer support) program with three areas – 1) post-shooting peer support, 2) family peer support, and 3) “general” peer support program. The expected date of implementation is April 2016.
 Since the subject matter falls squarely within her area of expertise, Ms. Tebo also has been intimately involved in the development of NOPD’s CIT training, curriculum, and policy.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 77 of 100 Page 77 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Ms. Tebo actively and successfully has spread the word to officers and their families about the newly developed OAP program. By December 2015, 49 officers had accessed the OAP and received in-house services and/or referrals to outside professionals/agencies for effective care. Of those 49 officers, six have remained in continuous counseling services through the OAP. Also in December, Ms. Tebo successfully hired a social worker who is actively pursuing joint OAP projects with Ms. Tebo.
The 15-30 minute training sessions each week at the Academy are highly interactive and to date have generated more than 20 inquiries and/or sessions and referrals. An anonymous mental health assessment form has been completed for Department review, and once approved, it will be disseminated to all personnel for their voluntary completion. This tool will give the OAP a baseline of the mental health of NOPD officers. Over time, this will allow for program development and intervention as needed to maximize the effectiveness of NOPD officers. The OAP is developing a reward program with the intention of improving officer morale. This program will allow rank to issue “OAP Coins” for acts of exceptional service. The coins can be redeemed for gift certificates and other items. OAP has held its first meeting to discuss Peer Support and develop that program in 2016. OAP developed a gap analysis of Consent Decree requirements to assist in future goals. OAP has posted two newsletters called “Mental Matters” which are distributed department-wide. These letters introduced the OAP program and aided the office in distributing information about access to services.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 78 of 100
Page 78 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVI. SUPERVISION
A. Supervision Generally
Close and effective supervision is a core principle of most large effective organizations. In a police department, however, where young men and woman are given badges, guns, and asked to put themselves in harm’s way to protect others, the concept of close and effective supervision takes on even greater importance.
The Monitoring Team has been critical of NOPD for its insufficient progress in this area of the Consent Decree in each of our prior reports. While our prior reviews have demonstrated to us most supervisors want to provide the sort of supervision required by the Consent Decree, many do not do so. Some do not provide adequate supervision because they lack the necessary skill and/or training, but this is a small group. Some do not provide adequate supervision because they lack the interest in doing so. In our experience, this is an even smaller group. But a large group do not provide adequate supervision simply because they lack the time to do so. Fortunately, Superintendent Harrison and his team are working to find ways to ensure supervisors have more time to actually supervise, but this is a project that will take time to bear fruit. Thus, this area remains a significant concern of ours.
It is not an exaggeration to say NOPD supervisors have a lot on their plates. Sergeants and lieutenants today must respond to the scene of use-of-force incidents, conduct misconduct investigations, review reports, review camera recordings, prepare officer schedules, handle payroll, provide in-district training, plan and administer roll calls, provide counseling and redirection, meet with community members, and even answer calls for service. Unfortunately, this full plate leaves little room for supervisors to spend time on the street, overseeing their officers, answering questions, providing guidance, and generally providing the sort of close and effective supervision most supervisors would like to provide.
While finding ways to get supervisors out of their offices and onto the streets will take time, NOPD has had some recent success in remedying several of our prior negative findings in this area.
 First, the Department quite successfully promoted the consistent and proper use of BWCs by officers. We now see a very high rate of compliance with respect to use of BWCs among officers.
 Second, supervisors are routinely reviewing BWC videos, and are taking action based upon what they see in those videos. One recent PIB investigation involving an inappropriate use of force by an officer against a handcuffed suspect, for example, was identified and brought to the attention of PIB by a supervisor routinely reviewing BWC videos.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 79 of 100 Page 79 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Third, supervisors now are doing a much better job reviewing officers’ daily activity reports and ensuring they are completed properly and completely.
 Fourth, the Monitoring Team’s most recent review of the Department’s record keeping practices has shown a dramatic improvement among all eight districts. Our most recent review of the 7th District, for example, found 100% compliance with Consent Decree requirements regarding photographic line-ups and custodial interrogations. Just nine months ago, the 7th District had one of the lowest compliance rates among all eight districts. Other districts have shown similar improvements in this area.
Notwithstanding these successes, more progress still needs to be made in related areas. Specifically, we still are seeing inconsistent results with respect to:
 Preparing and maintaining counseling forms at the district level;
 Clearly identifying monthly supervision schedules;
 Documenting when disciplinary action is taken against an officer;
 Documenting supervisory reviews of use of force reports; and
 Promoting efficiency within the various districts to avoid delays in (a) moving officers from roll calls to patrol duties and (b) moving unneeded officers from cleared incident locations back to patrol duties.
Even with these areas of inconsistent progress, as noted above, progress clearly is being made.
B. Video and Audio Documentation of Police Activities
In the Spring of 2014, the New Orleans Police Department began rolling out body worn cameras (BWCs) to its patrol officers. As its name implies, a BWC is a camera that attaches to the police officer’s uniform, and records interactions between the officer and citizens. ThenNOPD chief Ronal Serpas said of the Department’s voluntary decision to launch its BWC program, “this is the next step in American policing that will ensure transparency and accountability… .” Superintendent Harrison likewise strongly supports the use of BWCs, and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 80 of 100
Page 80 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

has expanded the program. Since NOPD’s adoption of BWCs, law enforcement agencies across the country have followed New Orleans’ lead and initiated similar programs of their own.27
While the Consent Decree does not speak of BWCs directly, it does require NOPD to take certain actions regarding the functionality, maintenance, and use of the audio and video equipment it deploys. Paragraph 327, for example, requires NOPD to ensure its vehicle cameras are operational, and that non-functioning equipment is repaired or replaced promptly. Paragraph 327 goes on to require NOPD to ensure “recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities.”
Since the initiation of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team has evaluated NOPD’s BWC program using the same standards the Consent Decree applies to in-car cameras. Since BWC recordings provide a critical tool to supervisors, the Monitoring Team also monitors when and how sergeants and lieutenants review BWC recordings as a component of the “close and effective supervision” required by Section XV of the Consent Decree.28
1. BWC Deployment
As of December 2015, according to Departmental statistics, the NOPD has outfitted 100% of its patrol officers with BWCs. Canine officers, “general assignment” (previously called “Task Force”) officers, Quality of Life officers, and School Resources officers also have been provided with cameras. While a malfunction or an emergency situation can result in an officer on the street without a camera from time to time, the Monitoring Team can confirm such exceptions are rare. Almost all patrol officers answering calls for service now wear BWCs.
Moreover, at the request of the Monitoring Team and the Court, in September, NOPD expanded its BWC program to cover sergeants as well as patrol officers – an especially important expansion since sergeants often answer calls for service when a patrol officer is not available. As of September 23, 2015, 100% of patrol sergeants were outfitted with BWCs.

27

Many law enforcement agencies only recently have launched BWC programs. The Denver Police

Department, for example, initiated its BWC program in January 2016. The Rochester, New York Police

Department likewise only recently announced plans to launch such a program. Virginia Beach police have

announced plans to launch a BWC program in 2017. In contrast to these agencies, many major law

enforcement agencies still have not taken any steps to adopt a BWC program.

28

One recent excellent example of the use of BWC camera footage by a supervisor involved a sergeant in the

Eighth police district (the French Quarter). In the course of reviewing BWC videos as part of his daily

supervisory duties, the sergeant came across a recording of an officer striking a handcuffed suspect in the

Eighth District station. The supervisor immediately reported the incident to PIB, which promptly

investigated the matter. Since the matter still is under investigation by PIB, we cannot discuss further

details in this Report. The Monitoring Team will review the PIB investigation upon its conclusion.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 81 of 100
Page 81 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The NOPD deserves great credit for its aggressive adoption of a broad-based BWC program, and its continued expansion of that program. It is quite accurate to say the Department is a national leader in this area.
2. BWC Use
Obviously, a BWC program only works if cameras are turned on, kept on, and used properly. The Monitoring Team assesses the proper use of BWCs by NOPD officers in several ways. First, the NOPD Compliance Bureau itself conducts a monthly BWC audit, the results of which are shared with the Monitoring Team and the Court. The Monitoring Team was involved in the development of the audit methodology and spot checks the audit results.
The last several audits conducted by the Compliance Bureau have shown an extremely high rate of camera use by NOPD officers. The most recent monthly audit (conducted in December 2015) showed an overall compliance rate of 98%. While this still means some officers are not turning on their cameras when they should, a 98% compliance rate is an extremely high rate of adoption and usage for any new technology.29
Second, the Monitoring Team supplements NOPD’s internal BWC audits with regular independent audits of our own. We review video recordings every quarter and evaluate not only the proper use of the BWC, but also the propriety of the action caught on the BWC recording. While the Monitoring Team is in the process of compiling the data from our most recent review, the following preliminary findings provide us additional confidence regarding NOPD’s findings:
 We have located videos in almost all incidents we reviewed.
 We usually find multiple videos when multiple officers respond to an incident.
 While videos sometimes are activated late or terminated early, in most cases the “missing” video footage was captured by another officers’ BWC.
 While most of the images caught on the Department’s BWCs show officers acting properly, a small number of videos show officer impropriety. When the Monitoring Team finds improper officer conduct, we take immediate steps to ensure the matter is fully and properly investigated by PIB.

29

An average NOPD officer responds to over 1,000 calls for service in a given year. The likelihood that an

officer occasionally will forget to activate his/her BWC is quite high. While the Monitoring Team wants

NOPD to achieve as close to 100% compliance as possible, it must be recognized that 100% compliance in

any police agency is unlikely.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 82 of 100 Page 82 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The full statistical results of our most recent camera audit will be presented in a forthcoming quarterly report.
Third, the Monitoring Team regularly conducts personal observations (ride-alongs) with officers and supervisors during all shifts and in all districts. We continuously assess BWC use. Our personal observations provide further confirmation most NOPD officers now are using their BWCs properly.
3. BWC Discipline
According to NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau, as of January 2016 (recently available even though beyond the period covered by this Report), PIB investigated 133 cases of BWC nonuse or mis-use in 2015. (To put this number in perspective, NOPD officers responded to nearly 400,000 calls for service in 2015.) Of these 133 cases, 56 have gone to a hearing, 20 are awaiting hearing, and 18 still are under PIB investigation. Of those cases that went to a hearing, the following outcomes resulted:30

30

A “sustained” case refers to a case in which the investigation determines “by a preponderance of the

evidence” that the alleged misconduct did occur. “Not sustained,” as one would expect, “means the

investigation was unable to determine “by a preponderance of the evidence” whether the alleged

misconduct occurred. Where an officer is “exonerated,” the investigation determined the alleged conduct

occurred, but did not violate NOPD policy. Finally, although not reflected on this particular graph, a

finding of “unfounded” refers to an investigation that determines the alleged misconduct did not occur or

did not involve the subject officer.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 83 of 100 Page 83 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Of those cases that made their way to a hearing and had the allegation sustained (meaning a violation did occur), the following discipline resulted:
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 84 of 100 Page 84 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
While the Monitoring Team initially questioned whether a one-day suspension was harsh enough to drive behavior and ensure the rapid adoption of the new BWC technology, the extremely high rate of usage by NOPD officers strongly suggests the current discipline regime has effectively driven the necessary behavior.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 85 of 100 Page 85 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVII. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION
The Monitoring Team initiated the second of a three-part assessment of PIB’s administrative investigation processes this reporting period. We reviewed approximately 30 administrative investigations to ensure they were completed in compliance with Consent Decree requirements. While the findings of our full assessment will be published in a forthcoming Special Report, a summary of our preliminary findings follows:
 Certain information, such as potential deficiencies in policy, training, or procedures, were not being documented in PIB administrative reports.
 PIB investigators either were not making credibility determinations or were not documenting them in their reports. On a related note, where we did find a credibility statement made in a report, the report often lacked support for the statement.
 Because PIB letters to complainants were not dated by PIB, the Monitoring Team was unable to assess whether NOPD is complying with its obligations to send letters to complainants within ten days of the conclusion of the investigation.
 PIB has been using a confusing internal form to track the timelines of its investigations.
 Some final letters sent to the complainant explained the closure of the investigation using one of seven findings: withdrawn, resigned under investigation, dismissed under investigation, sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded. The Consent Decree, however, limits the findings to the latter four: sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded.
Each of these preliminary findings was shared promptly with the NOPD and the Monitoring Team has confirmed PIB already has taken steps to remedy all of them. As noted above, the totality of the Monitoring Team’s findings as well as the status of NOPD’s corrective actions, will be detailed in a forthcoming Special Report.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 86 of 100
Page 86 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Outcome Assessments
Unlike prior federal Consent Decrees, the New Orleans Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to perform “outcome assessments” in addition to its compliance reviews and audits. (CD 448) While the outcome assessments do not impose an additional compliance hurdle upon the NOPD, they do provide both parties a means of assessing whether the Consent Decree is working as intended – that is, whether it is resulting in constitutional policing.
The outcome assessments, however, also provide the NOPD an alternative means of emerging from the Consent Decree. Paragraph 491 of the Consent Decree provides the Consent Decree may be terminated when NOPD and the City have been in “full and effective compliance” with the Consent Decree for two years. The Consent Decree defines “full and effective compliance” as “sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement or sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement’s outcome measures.” (CD 491) Accordingly, NOPD can demonstrate full and effective compliance either (a) by achieving the mandates of each material paragraph of the Consent Decree or (b) by showing, through the various outcome assessments, “sustained and continuing improvements in constitutional policing.”
While the initiation of the outcome assessments was not possible previously due to the then-state of NOPD’s compliance, the Monitoring Team believes the time is right to initiate several of the assessments. While NOPD still is a long way from being able to show compliance with many areas of the Consent Decree, significant progress has been made in several areas, and NOPD has enhanced its data keeping capabilities, such that this progress is capable of being measured more accurately now.
In January, the Monitoring Team, the Department of Justice, and the NOPD met to discuss the current state of the NOPD’s data and the initiation of the outcome assessments. The Monitoring Team plans to initiate several outcome assessments in the comings months.
B. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance
In addition to our audits and assessments, the Monitoring Team also provides Technical Assistance when requested by NOPD, the Department of Justice, and/or the Court. (CD 455) Over the past two quarters, the Monitoring Team has provided such Technical Assistance to support the Department’s efforts relating to hiring, training, use of force investigations, and citizen complaint intake. Our Technical Assistance has included, but has not been limited to, specialized training for NOPD FIT investigators, specialized training to PIB intake personnel, support to Academy leadership, and support to the Department’s efforts to restructure its new officer selection process. Additionally, the Monitoring Team is scheduled to provide additional
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 87 of 100
Page 87 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
training to PIB, SWAT, the Academy, and NOPD Communications in late January 2016, which will cover, among other things, “Decision Point Analysis,” conducting pre- and post-shooting incident investigations, and the mechanics of an administrative investigation.
C. Comprehensive Re-Assessment
As NOPD now has entered its third year under the Consent Decree, the Consent Decree requires “a comprehensive assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this Agreement have been achieved, and any modifications to the [Consent Decree] that are necessary for continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) of the requirement.” (CD 456) The Monitoring Team, the Department of Justice, and the NOPD met in January to initiate this “comprehensive reassessment.” The results of this project will be reported in a future Report.
D. Coordination with IPM
The Monitoring Team continues to work closely with the IPM, and continues to be pleased with the level of cooperation from Ms. Hutson and her colleagues.
E. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit
The Monitoring Team continues to work closely with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, and continues to be pleased with the skill, dedication, and level of cooperation from the Bureau’s staff. While the entire Compliance Bureau has proven itself committed to reform since their engagement, one member of the Compliance team warrants special mention here. Commander John Thomas has served as a core member of the Compliance Bureau and the key liaison between the Bureau and NOPD’s sworn personnel for approximately one year. Commander Thomas has been a great asset to the Monitoring Team and has served the citizens’ interests – and, thus, the interests of the NOPD – in the process. He has tirelessly promoted the requirements of the Consent Decree and worked hard to bring NOPD into compliance at every turn. His efforts have gone a long way to bringing NOPD into compliance in several areas.
To his credit – and, frankly, to the credit of Superintendent Harrison – Commander Thomas recently was promoted to Deputy Chief over the NOPD Management Services Bureau, the Bureau responsible for the Police Academy. While this is a loss to the Compliance Bureau, it is a gain for the Academy. It also is a clear reflection of the current NOPD leadership’s commitment to reforming the Department and achieving the requirements of the Consent Decree. It has been said that one can assess a police department’s – like any organization’s – commitment toward change by looking at who gets promoted. That the Department has chosen a member of its Compliance Bureau for promotion is a good sign. The promotion not only is well deserved by Commander (now Deputy Chief) Thomas, but it speaks volumes of the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 88 of 100 Page 88 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Department’s recognition of the work that still needs to be done at the Academy and its commitment to reward those who are committed to reform.
The Department recently announced that Commander Otha Sandifer would be filling Deputy Chief Thomas’s shoes within the Compliance Bureau. The Monitoring Team looks forward to working with Commander Sandifer.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 89 of 100
Page 89 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT
A core goal of the Consent Decree is to “increase public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.” (CD Introduction) One finds this concept throughout the Consent Decree. NOPD officers are required to deliver services that are “equitable, respectful, and bias-free” in order to promote “broad community engagement and confidence in the Department.” (CD VIII) The Department must “promote and strengthen partnerships within the community” to, among other things, “increase community confidence in the Department.” (CD X) Police managers are obligated to ensure the Department’s performance evaluation process is tailored to capture poor performance that could undermine “public safety and community trust.” (CD XIV) And supervisors are required to ensure their officers “are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety…” (CD 306) In short, the concepts of “confidence” and “trust” weave their way throughout the Consent Decree and underlie almost every obligation the NOPD has taken on.
One means of increasing public trust in any police department is by moving the department’s activities out from the shadows and into the sunlight. The NOPD Consent Decree embraces such a move by, among other things, obligating NOPD to “collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities, as permitted by law.” (CD 429)
As noted earlier in this report at page 19, in an effort to promote transparency in a manner consistent with legitimate law enforcement needs, U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan recommended NOPD develop a written policy governing the release of NOPD video recordings of critical incidents (e.g., officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths, etc.). Specifically, Judge Morgan sought a policy that would facilitate the prompt, pro-active release of video recordings of critical incidents involving the NOPD so long as the release is consistent with the legitimate needs of ongoing law enforcement operations.
In December 2015, the City, the NOPD, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Department of Justice worked together to develop a policy consistent with Judge Morgan’s recommendation. The Monitoring Team has reviewed the policy and believes it represents a well thought-out approach toward promoting transparency, while protecting privacy rights as well as the legitimate interests of law enforcement. The final policy was approved by the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice in January, and will be implemented shortly by NOPD as a PIB Directive. The Directive is attached to this Report as Attachment 4.
As the use of Body Worn Cameras by police officers becomes more commonplace, police departments across the country are struggling with a host of collateral issues, including, among many other things, whether, when, and how to release video recordings to the public. The national news has shown us all the power of video footage in the context of justified police shootings and unjustified police shootings. While we don’t for a moment pretend the release of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 90 of 100 Page 90 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com often troubling video footage is not without its risks, NOPD deserves great credit for placing itself at the forefront of this ongoing debate by embracing a policy that champions transparency and public knowledge.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 91 of 100 Page 91 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com XX. ATTACHMENTS
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 92 of 100 Page 92 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ATTACHMENT 1
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 93 of 100 Page 93 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 94 of 100 Page 94 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ATTACHMENT 2
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 95 of 100 Page 95 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 96 of 100 Page 96 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ATTACHMENT 3
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 97 of 100 Page 97 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 98 of 100 Page 98 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
ATTACHMENT 4
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 99 of 100 Page 99 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 472-1 Filed 02/26/16 Page 100 of 100 Page 100 of 100 February 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 93
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the First & Second Quarters of 2016 Released September 26, 2016
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 93
Page 2 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
September 26, 2016

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS PERIOD
 The Monitoring Team continued to approve policies, review Body Worn Camera videos, and evaluate uses of force. We also spent significant time focusing on the Police Academy, including recruit and in-service training. In addition, the Team conducted audits of photo lineups, custodial interrogations, use of force reporting, SA/DV investigations, and the CIT program. We also worked closely with NOPD and DOJ to support the development of a number of new programs, including a Use of Force Review Board and a police peer intervention program.
WHAT WE FOUND
 With the Support of the Monitoring Team, NOPD created and implemented an impressive Use of Force Review Board.
 NOPD drafted several new excellent policies, which were approved by the Monitoring Team and DOJ.
 Supported by Department leadership, NOPD officers created a nationleading officer peer intervention program called EPIC (for Ethical Policing is Courageous). The program has been applauded by other police agencies, several experts, and the New York Times.
 The Public Integrity Bureau has improved its administrative investigations process to remedy past negative findings.
 The Special Victims’ Section has made a “remarkable turnaround” following negative prior findings by the DOJ, the New Orleans IG, and the Monitoring Team.
 While new leadership has led to recent improvements at the Academy, the Department’s overall training program still needs additional improvement.
 NOPD has yet to roll out a compliant community oriented policing program, although it has assigned a full-time lieutenant to move these efforts forward.
 For a number of reasons, supervisors still find it hard to closely and effectively supervise their patrol officers.
NEXT PERIOD’S ACTIVITIES
 Continue to focus closely on all aspects of the Academy.  Conduct a “deep dive” audit of the Department’s Field Training Officer
(“FTO”) program.  Conduct a follow-up BWC audit focusing on ensuring patrol officers are
performing their duties in a professional, respectful, bias-free, and compliant manner.  Continue reviewing all significant uses of force.  Continue the Team’s ongoing review of Stop, Search, and Arrest data.  Perform multiple other audits and reviews, and provide technical assistance, as necessary.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 93 Page 3 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 93 Page 4 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 93 Page 5 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ........................................................................................................................ 3 II. Notes................................................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 7 V. Introduction to Quarterly Report.......................................................................................................... 9 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities..................................................................................................... 14 VII. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY........................................................................................ 18 VIII. USE OF FORCE........................................................................................................................................ 20
A. Use of Force Generally .........................................................................................................................20 B. Use of Force Review Board ................................................................................................................24 IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM............................................................................................................. 26 A. CIT Program.............................................................................................................................................26 B. CIT In Practice .........................................................................................................................................27 X. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS.......................................................................................................... 29 A. Paragraph 163 ........................................................................................................................................31 B. Paragraph 164 ........................................................................................................................................31 C. Paragraph 165 ........................................................................................................................................32 D. Paragraph 166 ........................................................................................................................................33 E. Paragraph 167 ........................................................................................................................................34 XI. DETECTIVE SELECTION ........................................................................................................................ 36 A. Paragraph 169 ........................................................................................................................................36 B. Paragraph 170 ........................................................................................................................................37 XII. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS ............................................................................................................... 39 A. Paragraph 171 ........................................................................................................................................39 B. Paragraph 172 ........................................................................................................................................40 C. Paragraph 173 ........................................................................................................................................41 D. Paragraph 174 ........................................................................................................................................41
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 93 Page 6 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
E. Paragraph 175 ........................................................................................................................................42 F. Paragraph 176 ........................................................................................................................................43 XIII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS ................................................................................................. 44 XIV. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT............................................................................................................ 50 XV. RECRUITMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 52 XVI. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING....................................................................................... 53 A. Academy In General..............................................................................................................................53 B. Classroom Size ........................................................................................................................................55 C. Ethical Policing Is Courageous (“EPIC”)........................................................................................57 XVII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 60 XVIII. SUPERVISION ..................................................................................................................................... 62 A. Quarterly Supervision Audit Results..............................................................................................62
1. Duties of Supervisors.................................................................................................................. 62 2. Supervisor and Command-Level Training.......................................................................... 70 3. Early Warning System ................................................................................................................ 70 4. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities .................................................... 71 XIX. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION ............. 76 XX. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................... 85 A. Technical Assistance.............................................................................................................................89 XXI. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT...................................................... 91 A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459) .....................................................................................................91 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)...........................................................91 C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)...............................................................................91 XXII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 93
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 93
Page 7 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 93
Page 8 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 93
Page 9 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. INTRODUCTION TO QUARTERLY REPORT
The last few months have seen a number of heart-wrenching policing events in the United States. Police shootings made the news in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, and North Miami; while shootings of police officers made the news in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and Austin. And during the same period, gun violence took the lives of literally hundreds of men and women across the U.S. These are trying times for law enforcement.
The national stories dominating the press, however, only highlight the criticality of finding ways to restore trust between civilians and those charged with protecting them. That is precisely the goal of the New Orleans Consent Decree. In agreeing that a Consent Decree was necessary in New Orleans, the City, the Police Department, and the Department of Justice recognized that “the ability of a police department to protect the community it serves is only as strong as the relationship it has with that community.”
To rebuild that relationship in New Orleans, the Consent Decree outlines a wide range of reforms aimed at “protect[ing] the constitutional rights of all members of the community, improve[ing] the safety and security of the people of New Orleans, and increase[ing] public confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.” Since the outset of the Consent Decree, the New Orleans Police Department has made significant progress toward implementing these reforms.
Among others, the Police Department rightly can claim material achievements in the following areas:
 Creation and implementation of a Use of Force Review Board that provides NOPD leadership a vehicle for the candid, substantive review of critical uses of force and a platform to identify gaps in policies, training, and practices. NOPD already has held multiple Board Reviews. The Monitoring Team has observed each Review and was highly impressed with the substance, completeness, and frankness of the discussions.
 Development and implementation of a nation-leading officer peer intervention program. NOPD’s EPIC program (for Ethical Policing is Courageous) incorporates social science research from leading experts and teaches officers how to intervene in another officer’s actions before mistakes are made and/or misconduct take place. The EPIC program is the result of a cooperative efforts of community members, outside experts, the Monitoring Team, and, most importantly, the rank and file members of the Police Department. EPIC goes beyond the requirements of the Consent Decree and is worthy of very high praise.
 Improvement of PIB’s administrative investigation process to remedy the Monitoring Team’s prior negative findings and incorporate a host of best practices.
 Partnering with the Innocence Project New Orleans to co-develop a training program for new detectives. The training, aimed at conducting quality criminal investigations,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 93
Page 10 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
received high marks from the detectives attending the inaugural course, and quite possibly represents one of the nation’s first training partnerships between a police department and an Innocence Project.
 Significantly reforming its Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence (SA/DV) practices. Following a highly critical report by the New Orleans Office of Inspector General and similarly negative findings by the Monitoring Team, NOPD dedicated significant efforts and resources to turn around its Special Victims Section. Since that time, the Monitoring Team and the OIG have noted a “remarkable turnaround” in the Department’s SA/DV practices.
 Implementing a number of new and revised policies incorporating national best practices, Consent Decree requirements, and a number of innovations flowing out of an effective department/DOJ/Monitoring Team policy review and development process.
 Initiating a new internal “ComStat” structure that promises to make better use of data to give Commanders more effective resources to manage their Districts, deploy resources in a more targeted fashion, identify practices in need of reform, and identify officers in need of additional supervision.
And these achievements complement the achievements already made in the prior quarters:
 Implementation of a best-practice Crisis Intervention Team program, modeled after a highly publicized model used for years in Memphis, which trains patrol officers to handle interactions with civilians in mental health crisis, thus reducing the risk officers will have to use force against such civilians and increasing the safety of the officers themselves.
 Implementation of a nation-leading BWC program with a strong policy, meaningful discipline for non-compliance, and an extremely high adoption rate by officers.
 A strong and effective canine program that has remedied almost all the shortcomings identified by DOJ in its initial Findings Letter.
 Expansion of a telephone response unit within the Department, which frees up patrol officers to dedicate more time to answering calls for service.
 A highly effective Force Investigative Team (“FIT”) responsible for the criminal and administrative investigation of all serious uses of force involving officers. The Monitoring Team reviews all FIT investigations and continues to be impressed with the thoroughness of the Team’s work.
 Development and implementation of a trail-blazing critical incident video release policy. While police agencies and legislatures across the country are building obstacles to the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 93
Page 11 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
release of video recordings, the NOPD took a strong stand in favor of transparency and adopted a policy aimed at tearing down those obstacles.
 Creation and continuation of an Office of Police Secondary Employment, which effectively resolved the problems with the Department’s prior manner of handling paid details.
 Implementation of more than 40 new or revised policies incorporating best practices and meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree.
These accomplishments are meaningful, and NOPD should be commended. They not only reveal a significant step toward sustained compliance with the Consent Decree, but, more importantly, they reflect a sincere commitment to reform.
Of course, as in past quarters, there exist other areas that require greater attention by the NOPD in order to achieve compliance with the Consent Decree. These areas include the following:
 The Police Academy. This has been a consistent negative finding by the Monitoring Team. We previously have criticized the quality (and, sometimes, the existence of) lesson plans, curriculum, training materials, and the quality of the instruction. While progress has been made in some areas, progress has been inconsistent and insufficient. And, as one would expect, we continue to see the results of training shortcomings on the street in terms of the way some officers perform their job responsibilities. To its credit, NOPD recently responded to the Monitoring Team’s concerns by making yet another change to the Academy leadership. In addition to a new Deputy Chief over the Department’s Management Services Bureau (Chief John Thomas) and a new Commander of the Academy (Commander Chris Goodly) – both of whom have demonstrated a clear commitment to reform – the Department just hired its first Academic Coordinator, Dr. Deirdre Magee. We are hopeful the combination of Chief Thomas, Commander Goodly, and Dr. Magee will move the Academy toward compliance, but we remain concerned the Academy lacks sufficient personnel and resources to move forward effectively.
 Supervision. The Monitoring Team has criticized the level of supervision patrol officers have received since the outset of the Consent Decree. We have recognized, however, the most significant hurdle to “close and effective supervision” (the term used by the Consent Decree) is not a lack of knowledge or desire by supervisors, but rather a lack of time, resources, and/or efficient practices. The Department recently brought together a group of lieutenants to identify current inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement. We are hopeful this group will identify solutions to this important problem. Until then, the combination of training gaps and supervision gaps creates the very real risk that the excellent progress NOPD has made with its policies, procedures, and institutions will too slowly find its way to the officers on the street.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 12 of 93
Page 12 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

 Community Oriented Policing. The New Orleans Police Department never has had a comprehensive community oriented policing program. Previously, the Department relied primarily on its “CoCo” sergeants and its Quality of Life Officers to engage with the community, but even this was not true community oriented policing. And, notwithstanding the benefits these programs offered many members of the community, the CoCo and QOL officers often were used as a crutch by the Department, which inhibited the involvement of other officers in the Department’s community policing efforts. In any event, as a result of the Department’s efforts to transfer more officers to patrol, the CoCo and the QOL programs now have been disbanded. In its place, the Department has tasked a single lieutenant to develop and implement a Department-wide community oriented policing program that involves all officers and supervisors. While we have been impressed by Lt. Williams and are working closely with her to ensure her program is comprehensive, compliant, and effective, we question whether the Department has focused adequate resources at this important area. While we understand the need to maximize officers on the streets answering calls for service and fighting crime, we remain of the view that an effective partnership with the community is a critical component of building trust, serving the community, and fighting crime. To quote the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, “[a] foundation of trust will allow police to form close relationships with the community that will produce solid achievements. Without trust between police and civilians, effective policing is impossible.”1
 Stops, Search & Arrests. One of the fundamental purposes of the Consent Decree is to “ensure that all NOPD investigatory stops, searches, and arrests are conducted in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The Monitoring Team continues to audit the Department’s stops, searches, and arrests by analyzing data, reviewing BWC footage, and watching police/citizen encounters during ride-alongs. Our past audits identified ongoing shortcomings in this important area. We brought our findings to the attention of the Department, and, after a slow initial response, we are pleased to report the Department has taken meaningful steps to cure the deficiencies the Monitoring Team raised. Even with this recent effort, this area remains a critical focus of the Monitoring Team.
Each of these areas needs additional NOPD attention.
Despite the work still ahead of it, from what the Monitoring Team has seen, the Department is taking the right steps to bring itself into full and sustained compliance with the Consent Decree. Further, the Monitoring Team remains convinced NOPD’s management team is committed to reform. A member of the Monitoring Team who took his own city (Pittsburgh) through a DOJ

1

Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action” (Aug.

1994).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 13 of 93 Page 13 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Consent Decree years ago is fond of saying the key to working through a Consent Decree and emerging as a better department on the other side is leadership committed to reform. The past two years have seen so much progress by the NOPD for precisely this reason. Superintendent Michael Harrison, Chief Paul Noel, Chief Arlinda Westbrook, Chief John Thomas, Chief Rannie Mushatt, Chief Danny Murphy, and many others continue to impress the Monitoring Team with their commitment to achieving full and sustained compliance with the Consent Decree. While a lot of people deserve great credit for bringing the NOPD this far along the path toward compliance, the Department’s successes could not have been achieved without the commitment, energy, and wisdom of these remarkable leaders.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 14 of 93 Page 14 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Monitoring Team has been extremely busy since our last report. Among other things, our team has undertaken the following activities over the course of the last two quarters:
 Reviewed all serious use of force incidents and a significant number of other use of force incidents.
 Observed Use of Force Review Board sessions.
 Conducted a multi-faceted audit of NOPD’s use of force practices and data, including an audit of reported uses of force versus unreported uses of force.
 Studied NOPD’s stop, search, and arrest data.
 Conducted multiple audits of each police district’s handling of custodial interrogations, photographic lineups, record keeping, and supervision practices.
 Conducted multiple audits of the functionality and use of each districts in-car cameras, body warn cameras, CEW (Taser ®) cameras, and in-car gps systems.
 In coordination with the New Orleans Office of Inspector, conducted multiple audits of NOPD’s progress implementing the reforms called for by the OIG following its investigation into the Department’s prior sexual assault investigation practices.
 Provided technical assistance to NOPD’s PIB, its FIT team, the Academy, and the Department’s new community engagement coordinator.
 Reviewed Academy curriculum, lesson plans, and teaching materials; and observed instructors and Academy leadership on countless occasions.
 Reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved multiple policies.
 Met with community members, community groups, and business leaders to get their views of NOPD progress.
 Attended monthly status conferences with NOPD leadership, the Department of Justice, and Judge Morgan at which the NOPD and the Monitoring Team provided updates on all areas of concern to the Court.
 Personally observed police officers in countless “ride-alongs” in all districts and during all shifts.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 15 of 93
Page 15 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 Responded to the scene of critical use of force incidents, including officer involved shootings.
Additionally, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the NOPD in support of its EPIC (Ethical Policing is Courageous) program, which was rolled out earlier this year. As described further in the body of this report, EPIC is a comprehensive peer intervention program created by NOPD officers with the support of outside experts that teaches officers how effectively to intervene to prevent a problem or stop a problem from escalating, empowers officers to intervene, and then protects them when they do. The program is trail-blazing, and the Monitoring Team believes it will become a model for policing across the country in time.
In addition to the foregoing, the Monitoring Team also spent significant time this period, as it always does, meeting with and listening to civilians, community leaders, and officers regarding the police department, the Consent Decree, and police reform generally. While we cannot recount all the questions, suggestions, and concerns we have fielded over these months, the following questions are illustrative.
Question/Comment. Doesn’t the current crime rate call for more aggressive policing?
Monitoring Team Response. Like most big cities in the United States, New Orleans has seen an uptick in crime (including violent crime) over the past few years. While some experts attribute a rise in crime to economic factors – e.g., wage stagnation, job loss, housing costs, school costs, etc. – some commentators have used crime as a rallying call for more aggressive policing nationwide. We strongly disagree. The Monitoring Team believes the most effective tools in a police agencies’ crime fighting toolbox are clear policies that give officers meaningful guidance, well-trained officers who have respect for all members of the community; robust training that incorporates procedural justice, respect for all members of the community, and constitutional standards; committed and competent supervisors; thorough and competent investigations into police use of force and allegations of misconduct; and strong partnerships with the community. All of these tools lie at the core of the Consent Decree.
In short, it is the view of the Monitoring Team that a more violent society does not call for more violent policing; a more violent society calls for more effective policing. So far, NOPD has shown itself to be an adherent of this view. By implement the reforms encompassed by the Consent Decree, by providing its officers better training, by respecting individuals’ rights, by building stronger bonds with the community, NOPD will be able to better protect civilians and officers. The Monitoring Team will continue to monitor NOPD’s ongoing efforts to do all these things.
Question/Comment. What is NOPD doing to engage with the community now that the Community Affairs Coordinators and Quality of Life Officers have been redeployed to patrol duties?
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 16 of 93
Page 16 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Monitoring Team Response. In January 2016, NOPD announced a major departmental restructuring which, among other things, did away with the positions of Community Affairs Coordinator and Quality of Life Office in an effort to put more patrol officers on the streets. According to NOPD, the restructuring will involve “becoming a community policing focused department.” As of the publication of this report, however, NOPD still is working on what this new focus will look like. The Monitoring Team has reviewed early drafts of the forthcoming community oriented policing plan, and believe the effort has sensible goals. The timing of the plan’s implementation continues to concern us, though. Also, we will withhold judgment on whether the ultimate plan can and will be implemented effectively. Currently, only one member of NOPD is working on the plan,2 which will make it hard for NOPD truly to become a “community policing focused department,” as it says is its goal.
Question/Comment. What is the Monitoring Team doing about other jurisdictions operating in New Orleans, and why don’t they have to following NOPD’s rules?
Monitoring Team Response. The Monitoring Team has heard this question from numerous people in numerous contexts, including from members of the civil rights community, participants at our public meeting, and a collection of young men who have spent time in the justice system. The questioners generally recognized the improvements within the NOPD, but express concern over other jurisdictions operating in New Orleans beyond the reach of NOPD’s new policies and practices. NOPD’s rules governing vehicle pursuits, uses of force, firing at automobiles, conducting force investigations, and de-escalation have been held up at these meetings as best practices to which other jurisdictions should have to adhere. One young man captured the views of many others in the room when he asked “why don’t you just make everyone follow NOPD’s new rules. They are obviously better.”
The Monitoring Team recognizes the multitude of non-NOPD jurisdictions operating in New Orleans, including other New Orleans law enforcement agencies, regional sheriff’s offices, the Louisiana State Police, and multiple federal agencies. The Consent Decree, however, reaches only the New Orleans Police Department, and the activities of non-NOPD agencies is not within the oversight authority of the Monitoring Team. That being said, the Monitoring Team, with the support of the Court, has taken steps to ensure NOPD’s Force Investigations Team handles all investigations of any non-federal / non-state police-involved shooting in New Orleans.3

2

The Monitoring Team recognizes others within the NOPD are contributing to Lt. Williams’s efforts, but the

community policing project is the primary focus only of Lt. Williams.

3

Police shootings by federal agencies are investigated by the federal authorities. Police shootings by state

agencies (e.g., the Louisiana State Police) are investigated by state authorities. The New Orleans Police

Department is responsible for conducting criminal investigations of all other non-NOPD police-involved

shootings in New Orleans.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 17 of 93 Page 17 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Additionally, Superintendent Harrison has proactively reached out and met with surrounding police agency leadership to emphasize that NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau would be the sole investigating agencies on any non-state/non-federal police use of force in New Orleans. The Monitoring Team applauds Superintendent Harrison for taking this step.
Finally, while the Consent Decree governs only the NOPD and the City of New Orleans, we are hopeful other local (and national) law enforcement agencies will take note of NOPD’s reform efforts over the past three years. NOPD new policies, programs, and practices are trailblazing and already are having a meaningful impact on the community.
* * * As we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team also spent significant time meeting with, and listening to, the parties to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ. We also continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor’s team, as well as community advocacy groups like SART and the New Orleans Family Justice Center.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 18 of 93
Page 18 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VII. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY
The process implemented by the NOPD, the DOJ, and the Monitoring Team in 2014 to facilitate the review, revision, and approval of Department policies continues to be effective. NOPD completed numerous additional policies these past two quarters, which supplement a large number of policies previously approved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team. To date, the following policies have been approved:

Search and Seizure

Terry Stops

Search Warrant Content, Forms and Use of Force Reviews

Handcuffing and Restraints

Control Devices and Techniques

Force Investigative Team (“FIT”) Reporting Use of Force

Use of Force Review Boards

Firearms

Authorized Ammunition

Firearms Training Qualification and Requalification

Conducted Electrical Weapon

Arrests/Arrest Warrants/Wanted Persons

Miranda Rights

Audits and Reviews Audit and Review Unit Standard Operating Guidelines

Commendations and Awards

Secondary Employment

Mediation Settlement

Adjudication of Misconduct

Disciplinary Matrix/Penalty Schedule

Employee Counseling

Foot Pursuits

Body-Worn Camera (“BWC”) Inadvertent Misuse and Non-use

In-Car Camera

Body-Worn Camera – General

Release of Critical Incident BWC Vehicle Pursuits Recordings

Immigration Status

Bias-Free Policing

Canines

Crisis Intervention

Crisis Transportation Service

Sexual Assault (and Sex Crimes Operating Guidelines)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 19 of 93
Page 19 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Domestic Violence

Disciplinary Hearings/Penalties

Misconduct Compliant Investigator Negotiated Settlement Responsibilities

Prisoner Transportation

In addition to these approved policies, a number of other policies have been revised by NOPD, and are awaiting review and approval by the Monitoring Team and DOJ.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 20 of 93
Page 20 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VIII. USE OF FORCE
A. Use of Force Generally
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, Judge Morgan held the sixth in a series of public hearings focusing on the New Orleans Police Department’s progress under the Consent Decree entered in this matter. In attendance were counsel for the United States, counsel for the City of New Orleans, three members of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team, NOPD leadership, and multiple members of the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau Force Investigation Team (“FIT”). Among other things, the Court heard from the Monitoring Team, the DOJ, and the NOPD regarding NOPD’s progress toward achieving compliance with its Consent Decree obligations relating to the Use of Force.4
Following introductory comments from the Monitoring Team, Judge Morgan opened the hearing with a general discussion regarding the importance of the Use of Force provisions of the Consent Decree. Noting that some force is to be expected from police officers due to the nature of their work, Judge Morgan emphasized that a core goal of the Consent Decree was to reduce the use of excessive force by officers. Judge Morgan explained that the Consent Decree seeks to achieve this critical goal by requiring new policies, training, levels of supervision, and discipline in the use of force area.
NOPD Compliance Manager Bruce Hamilton began NOPD’s use of force presentation. After acknowledging use of forces issues were one of the most important elements of the Consent Decree, Mr. Hamilton provided the Court and the public relevant background regarding force issues generally and the Department’s process for dealing with officer uses of force in particular. As an initial matter, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that
NOPD officers are expected to use the minimum amount of force that an objectively reasonable officer would use in light of the circumstances to effectively bring an incident or person under control while protecting themselves or the lives of others.
Mr. Hamilton then went on to provide an overview of the Department’s use of force investigations policies and practices.
Mr. Hamilton then turned the lectern over to the leader of the NOPD PIB Force Investigation Team, Lieutenant Kevin Burns. Lt. Burns walked the Court through the process of a FIT investigation. Lt. Burns described the difference between a FIT administrative investigation and a FIT criminal investigation – noting an administrative investigation looks for violations of policy, training gaps, and other opportunities for process improvement, while a criminal

4

Following the hearing, the Court published a summary of the proceedings. The following report borrows

heavily, sometimes verbatim, from the Court’s summary.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 21 of 93
Page 21 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
investigation focuses on whether there has been a violation of law, and explained how both can proceed simultaneously in appropriate cases. According to Lt. Burns, FIT investigated 47 uses of force in 2015. Lt. Burns also explained NOPD’s force classification system, which is an outgrowth of the Consent Decree. In summary fashion, Lt. Burns explained NOPD’s four levels of force, which are described in the Consent Decree as follows:
 Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury.
 Level 2 uses of force include use of an ECW [Electronic Control Weapon or Taser®] (including where an ECW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns).
 Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal.
 Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by this Agreement, and shall be investigated by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team.
Notably, pursuant to paragraph 77 of the Consent Decree, “hand control or escort techniques applied for the purposes of handcuffing or escorts that are not used as pressure point compliance techniques, do not result in injury or complaint of injury, and are not used to overcome resistance, are not reportable uses of force.” According to Lt. Burns, NOPD FIT reviews all NOPD uses of force, including minor uses of force that are investigated by a District sergeant in the first instance. More serious (Level 4) uses of force are investigated only by FIT.
Lt. Burns also described the Department’s newly constituted Use of Force Review Board. According to Lt. Burns, with the help of the Monitoring Team, the NOPD established and held its first Use of Force Review Board on January 22, 2016, and has held five Review Boards since covering a total of 14 cases. Lt. Burns described the Review Board as an opportunity for the FIT to be self-critical:
We self-critique. And we have deputy chiefs . . . Paul Noel, Rannie Mushatt, Chief Westbrook [participate]. We even have members of the Academy attend. So everyone has input and they have their opportunity to critique the case done by FIT, by the department, everything as a whole. It is a more broad critique of the investigation as a whole.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 22 of 93
Page 22 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Monitoring Team commended NOPD on the Use of Force Review Board: “Our experience with police departments across the country is [that it is] very difficult to start up a use of force review board, and I want to compliment NOPD for taking the lead, the initial lead, and starting off a great process with Chief Noel, Chief Mushatt, and Chief Westbrook with the open selfcritical analysis that took place on January 22nd.”
Sergeant John Helou followed Lt. Burns and presented the Court with an analysis of use of force data from 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to NOPD’s data:
 Uses of force per arrest increased from 2014 to 2015 (from 1.1% to 2.6%), driven (a) by a 22.5% decrease in arrests and a 77% increase in reported uses of force, and (b) by a 156% increase in reported firearm/ECW pointing event (an event not deemed reportable prior to the Consent Decree).
 Comparing the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016, NOPD’s data show an increase in officer uses of force of 28% (from 136 to 174). Here again, however, the data suggest the increase was driven primarily by a marked increase in the reporting of firearm/ECW pointing events (as noted above, an event not deemed reportable prior to the Consent Decree).
While the data show an increase in reported uses of force, Sgt. Helou explained that, in addition to reflecting the new requirement to capture firearm/ECW pointing events as uses of force, the increase reflected better self-reporting of uses of force generally rather than an actual increase in uses of force.
Based upon the Monitoring Team’s regular audits to identify unreported uses of force, we agree with the Department’s interpretation of the data. The work the Monitoring Team has done supports the fact that there is greater reporting of use of force events, particularly in the area of drawing and pointing the weapon. We attribute the greater reporting of use of force events to the implementation of clearer policies, enhanced training, the use of body-worn cameras among patrol officers, and an increased departmental focus on reporting, supervision, and discipline since the approval of the Consent Decree by the Court.
Among other statistics, Sgt. Helou reported the following:
 A 10% drop in NOPD’s “canine bite ratio” from 2014 to 2015,
 No “off leash” canine deployments in 2015 or 2016,
 A 28% reduction in the use of ECWs (Tasers®) from 2014 to 2015, and
 Two additional firearms discharges from 2014 (10) to 2015 (12).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 23 of 93 Page 23 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Following the Department’s use of force presentation, the Court heard from Deputy Monitor Dennis Nowicki and Monitor Chet Epperson. Both monitors are former police chiefs and both focus on use of force issues for the Monitoring Team.
Chief Nowicki began the Monitoring Team’s presentation by providing an overview of how the Consent Decree deals with use of force issues through policies, training, supervision, and discipline – something Chief Nowicki referred to as “PTSD.” Chief Epperson then described some of the audits and reviews the Monitoring Team conducts to assess the NOPD’s level of compliance with its use of force policies. These monitoring tools include, among other things:
 Reviewing policies,
 Attending training,
 Reviewing BWC videos,
 Reviewing a significant sample of all use of force reports,
 Reviewing all Level 4 use of force reports,
 Reviewing all serious use of force investigations,
 Reviewing all canine authorizations and deployments, and
 Providing technical assistance to the Department in the form of counseling, advice, and in person training.
In response to questions from the Court, the Monitoring Team also described some of the tests they perform specifically to identify unreported uses of force. These tests include:
 Reviewing BWC videos,
 Reviewing incidents where “resisting arrest” charges have been brought against the subject,
 Reviewing civil law suits against the City alleging excessive force, and
 Reviewing citizen complaints alleging excessive force to see if the officer had recorded the alleged force on his/her own.
While recognizing there is more work to be done, the Monitoring Team commended NOPD for developing an effective Force Investigation Team and praised the professional use of force investigations conducted by FIT’s criminal investigation team. The Monitoring Team also
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 24 of 93
Page 24 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recognized a significant improvement in FIT’s administrative investigations, an area previously identified by the Monitoring Team as needing improvement.
In the area of Canine, the Monitoring Team called out NOPD officer Harold Chambliss and Sergeant Blanchard for special recognition. Chief Epperson noted he “reviewed their logs in terms of their lesson plans and their data, and they have a really good component.” Chief Epperson contrasted the current level of compliance with the poor record keeping the Monitoring Team noted in the past. “At this point,” he noted, “the Canine unit is doing a tremendous job.” The Monitoring Team ended its presentation with a summary of the areas where the Police Department was on track for achieving compliance with the Consent Decree and those where the Department was not yet on track.
B. Use of Force Review Board
Paragraph 108 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “develop and implement a Use of Force Review Board to review all serious uses of force and other FIT investigations.” As detailed in the Consent Decree, NOPD’s Review Board is comprised of the Deputy Superintendent of the Public Integrity Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of the Field Operations Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of the Investigations & Support Bureau, and other members.
The Consent Decree spells out the tasks of the Use of Force Review Board, which we summarize here:
 Review NOPD use of force investigations to ensure they are complete and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
 Hear a case presentation from the lead investigator and discuss the case as necessary with the investigator to gain a full understanding of the facts of the incident.
 Order additional investigation when necessary.
 Determine whether the force violated NOPD policy, and, if so, refer the matter to PIB for disciplinary action if such action has not already been initiated.
 Determine whether the incident raises policy, training, equipment, or tactical concerns, and refer such incidents to the appropriate unit within NOPD to ensure they are resolved.
 Direct District supervisors to take and document non-disciplinary corrective action to enable or encourage an officer to improve his or her performance.
The Consent Decree requires that the Review Board document its findings and recommendations in a formal Use of Force Review Board Report within 45 days of receiving the FIT investigation and within 15 days of the case presentation.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 25 of 93 Page 25 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As noted in our prior Report, NOPD convened its first Use of Force Review Board on Friday, January 22, 2016, with the Monitoring Team in attendance. The Review Board examined three uses of force by NOPD officers. While outside the period covered by our prior Quarterly Report, we nonetheless reported on its effectiveness since it was such an important development for the NOPD. Among other things, we found the following:
In short, the first Review Board session was handled extremely well. The Review Board’s discussion was thoughtful, introspective, and substantive. Newly-appointed Deputy Chief Paul Noel facilitated the session, and was an active participant. Voting members of the Board, including PIB Chief Arlinda Westbrook and ISB Chief Rannie Mushatt, were active participants. Nonvoting members, Academy Commander Richard Williams, Fifth District Commander Christopher Goodly, SWAT Commander Bryan Lampard, and the several other participants, also substantively and effectively contributed to the discussion. In the view of the Monitoring Team, all did a great job.
February 2016 Monitoring Team Report at 26. For these and other reasons, the Monitoring Team found that all participants did a great job and strongly commended NOPD for this important accomplishment. We are pleased to report, NOPD’s great work with its Use of Force Review Board continues. The Monitoring Team attended all Review Board hearings conducted so far in 2016, and Judge Morgan herself attended one in person. Like the first one we reviewed, the subsequent hearings continue to reflect open, honest, thoughtful, and self-critical (where appropriate) discussion. The key now, of course, will be ensuring the candid Review Board findings get translated into action by NOPD leadership and supervisors in the field.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 26 of 93
Page 26 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM
A. CIT Program
Section IV of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.” To achieve this outcome, NOPD agreed to create a properly trained Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”).
The NOPD began actively developing its CIT program (including a policy, an Academy curriculum, a training program, and training materials) in August 2015. The first class of 24 officers graduated on September 18, 2015. By May 2016, the NOPD had trained its third class of CIT officers, bringing the total number of trained CIT officers to sixty-nine. NOPD’s most recent graduating class, the fourth, brought another 30 officers into the CIT program on September 6, 2016. The NOPD anticipates hosting another CIT training class in October, putting it on track to exceed Consent Decree paragraph 115, which requires training 20% of the patrol division in CIT.

No. Officers Trained
120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Aug-15

Sep-15

May-16

Sep-16

In addition to training CIT officers, the Police Department conducted its first crisis intervention training sessions for call takers and dispatchers in June and will offer additional communications trainings throughout the year in compliance with CD ¶ 119. NOPD also is providing eight hours of CIT in-service training to all officers in 2016 to bring it into compliance with paragraph 118 of the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 27 of 93
Page 27 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Consistent with its new CIT training program, the Department developed and received approval for two related NOPD policies, Chapter 41.25, “Crisis Intervention,” and Chapter 41.26, “Crisis Transportation Service.” The new policies went into effect March 13, 2016. The NOPD drafted these policies in collaboration with the CIT Planning Committee, which is composed of community experts. The implementation of these policies represents another significant step forward for NOPD’s CIT program.
In addition to developing new policies and training CIT officers, NOPD also has begun using its CIT data for multiple purposes. NOPD has utilized these data to identify individuals who have been involved in multiple crisis encounters with the NOPD. The department has formed a Mental Health Review Board with partner agencies to develop solutions to assist these individuals in obtaining appropriate care solutions. Through the use of the Crisis Intervention Form data, the Department has enhanced the Planning Committee’s ability to serve as a “problem-solving forum” as called for in CD ¶ 120. The Department intends to publish midyear aggregate data compiled from Crisis Intervention Forms on its website in compliance with Consent Decree ¶ 113.
The Department’s CIT program has been gaining recognition from community partners for the valuable role it plays in the community’s response to mental health and substance abuse issues. The NOPD has provided Crisis Intervention trainings to outside agencies including Probation and Parole, and the New Orleans Family Justice Center. NOPD’s CIT coordinators have presented at the annual members meeting for National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”) New Orleans, a statewide NAMI conference, and a Metropolitan Human Services District regional council meeting, and the development of NOPD’s CIT program was highlighted in a quarterly newsletter from NAMI New Orleans.
B. CIT In Practice
In June 2016, the Monitoring Team conducted an audit to determine how often a CIT trained officer was dispatched to calls for service dealing with individuals in a mental health crisis. Since the new policy on Crisis Intervention officially went into effect in March 2016, the monitors randomly selected a review sample from April and May 2016 dispatched calls for mental health crisis. There were 443 mental health-related calls dispatched in the April-May 2016 time-frame. The Monitoring Team selected approximately 10% of those calls and identified 47 item numbers to review and determine whether a CIT-trained officer was dispatched.
The NOPD Compliance Bureau was able to cross-reference in the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system (1) a list of CIT officer ID numbers and (2) a list of item numbers from which we identified calls involving mental health crisis. The Monitoring Team used these data to determine how often a CIT officer was assigned to calls involving individuals in mental health crisis. Overall, the CAD data indicate that CIT officers were assigned to mental health crisis calls slightly more than half of the time so far in 2016.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 28 of 93 Page 28 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Number of Officers
CIT Assigned CIT Not Assigned
While this number reflects an underutilization of the CIT program, it also reflects a reality of the phasing in of CIT training. The current response rate will serve as a baseline for future audits of CIT response. It is anticipated, by the NOPD and the monitoring team, that the percentage of CIT-trained officer response will increase as the number of trained officers increases and the CIT program becomes more systematically in-grained in the department.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 29 of 93
Page 29 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

X. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
The Monitoring Team conducted multiple Custodial Interrogation audits since January. We audited Districts 1, 6, 8, and the Homicide Unit in February 2016. We subsequently audited Districts 2, 3, 6, 8, and the Special Victims Section in April and May 2016. In general, NOPD has shown improvement in most areas relating to Custodial Interrogations. But compliance still is inconsistent. Accordingly, we find NOPD to be in partial compliance with its obligations under Section VI of the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to “ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.” To accomplish this objective, the Consent Decree identifies a number of specific steps NOPD must take with respect to custodial interrogations. In order to evaluate whether those steps were taken, NOPD must maintain and make available to the Monitoring Team certain documentation, including video recordings of the interrogations. As it is NOPD’s burden to demonstrate compliance, where we were unable to locate a video we have no choice but to find the Department in noncompliance.
Previously, NOPD did a poor job making materials and recordings available to the Monitoring Team, which meant these materials and recordings likewise were not readily available to supervisors. While some districts did better than others, compliance was inconsistent. While we have seen improvement, inconsistencies remain. Before examining NOPD’s compliance with each paragraph, it is worth summarizing the overall compliance we have seen in the various districts.
This period, the First District showed improvement. Earlier this year, our review of interrogations in the First District was slow and arduous. It took First District personnel more than four hours to attempt to locate 11 of 13 recordings. More recently, the process had improved, but still was inconsistent. Some entries in the custodial interrogation logs we reviewed were listed as interviews, but actually were interrogations.5 Similarly, some entries in the log actually were photographic line-ups instead of interviews or interrogations.
Our audit of the Second District also revealed inconsistent compliance. The Second District audit was made particularly difficult because officers mixed interviews and interrogations in the same record and mislabeled many of the recordings as interrogations when they were interviews, and mislabeled interviews as interrogations. In addition, one case of a photographic line-up was entered into the interrogation log as opposed to the photographic line-up log as required. This

5

An interview is different from a Custodial Interrogation. An interview simply is any “questioning

for the purpose of eliciting facts or information.” Consent Decree at 14(pp). A Custodial

Interrogation takes place where there are “words or actions on the part of an officer that the

officer knows or should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, after a

person has been taken into custody.” Consent Decree at 14(s).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 30 of 93
Page 30 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
reflected careless record-keeping and failed to show supervisory review of the records or the recordings. Importantly, we do not criticize these practices because they make our job more difficult. We criticize these practices because if we cannot find materials we know supervisors cannot find them either.
In addition to record keeping, we identified other lingering problems in the Second District. The first problem encountered was that the in-District camera system had not been utilized and was not working during the first quarter of 2016. The Second District also had difficulty locating recordings, while other recordings that were located were not viewable due to technological problems or user error. For example, we found muffled recordings, mislabeled recordings, recordings ceased prior to the end of the interrogation, incomplete recordings, and erratic sequencing of recordings due to multiple cameras recordings different parts of a single interrogation. We also identified multiple carelessness log entries. In short, the Second District was not able to demonstrate significant compliance with any of the consent decree paragraphs regarding custodial interrogations.
Our review of the Third District revealed significant improvement over prior audits. Not only did the Third District show significant improvement, but the District showed initiative by implementing its own internal auditing program to identify deficiencies on its own.
Our review of the Sixth District showed significant improvement over prior audits as well. Indeed, the Sixth District was the only duty location that demonstrated acceptable levels of compliance with custodial interrogation requirements from the audits conducted of four duty locations audited in April. (In contrast, our February reviewed found the Sixth District 81% compliance with most paragraphs in this area.) But even here, there remains room for further improvement. For example, our review revealed the District had some recordings on the official in-District camera system (an L3 system) and some on their BWC cameras. Indeed, eight of the 15 recording we audited were recorded on a BWC. While the recordings were made available to us, the practice conflicts with NOPD police and with the Department’s prior representations that its L3 cameras were in full working order and full use.
The primary problem identified in the Eighth District related to the quality of their recordings. The Eighth District does have an L3 camera system, however, the microphone was improperly situated leading to an extremely low audio volume that could not record either the subject being interrogated or both the subject and the interrogating officer. But even with this audio problem, the Eighth District demonstrated improvement from prior audit periods.
While the Special Victims Section has seen dramatic improvement over the past 12 months, our audit identified some lingering problems with recording custodial interrogations. Of the 27 recording we reviewed during our Q1 audit, most of the recordings had some discrepancy in that they could not be found, were inaccurately listed as an interview, did not contain both audio/video, the volume was too low to capture audio, or the recording ceased while the subject
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 31 of 93 Page 31 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
remained in the interrogation room.6 The SVS leadership, however, took prompt action to remedy these problems when they were brought to their attention.
With this as background, our specific findings regarding compliance with the several Custodial Interrogation paragraphs of the Consent Decree follows:
A. Paragraph 163
Paragraph 163 provides that “officers shall not use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual’s family during custodial interrogations.” While the Monitoring Team identified no physical violence during interrogations, the absence of some recordings prevents us from finding the NOPD in full compliance in some districts. Accordingly, we find NOPD demonstrated partial compliance.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS SOD

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

Compliant

Of the Districts monitored, some were able to retrieve all audio/video recordings of custodial interrogations and some were able to retrieve the majority of recordings. Those reviewed did not contain any indication of physical violence or threats of physical violence.

B. Paragraph 164

Paragraph 164 requires that “all custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded. All recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety. NOPD appropriately rejects the concept of a ‘pre-interview’ and prohibits any decision not to record any portion of the interrogation based on such categorization. The recording equipment shall not be turned off unless the suspect states that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded. If the

6

The primary issue with SVS compliance in this area relates to the Section’s use of DVDs to capture

interrogations rather than the Department’s official L3 camera system.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 32 of 93 Page 32 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
suspect requests that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded, the interviewer will record the subject making this request and shall document this request in the case report.” Because NOPD was unable to make all recordings available to the Monitoring Team, we continue to find NOPD partially compliant with this requirement.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS SOD

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

NonCompliant

Compliant

The low score for SVS is due primarily to the inadequate compliance of the Special Victims Section. While the SVS has made remarkable improvements in many areas – as the OIG found and as our ongoing audits continue to find – many of the recordings we reviewed this period had the audio portion recorded too low to understand (11 of 27 recordings), five recordings had the audio portion only (no video recording), and five recordings could not be located or the DVD would not play. Only six of the 27 recordings were in compliance with this section of the Consent Decree.
C. Paragraph 165
Paragraph 165 requires that, if the interrogation is not able to be video and audio recorded because of equipment failure or malfunction, detectives shall record the interrogation by means of a digital or cassette recorder. Any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau. NOPD is in partial compliance with its obligations under this paragraph:

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 33 of 93 Page 33 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS SOD

Compliant

NonCompliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

The low level of compliance in the Second District was due to multiple equipment failures. The problem was immediately brought to the attention of the Commander of the Second District, and the District has taken steps to resolve the non-compliance.
In the Eighth District, officers apparently did not recognize the audio portion of their recordings was too low to be of much use. The failure of the audio portion should have led to a report. Apparently, officers either did not review the recordings to learn there was an audio failure or they believed that was the best the system was able to provide. Supervisors likewise either did not review the recordings to determine if they were being properly conducted or they believed the non-functioning audio was acceptable. Many of the recordings had the audio portion recorded too low to understand (11 of 27 recordings), five recordings had the audio portion only (no video recording), and five recordings could not be located or the DVD would not play. Only six of the 27 recordings were in compliance with this section of the Consent Decree.
D. Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166 of the Consent Decree requires officer to “maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations.” NOPD has demonstrated partial compliance with this paragraph.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 34 of 93 Page 34 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS SOD

Compliant

NonCompliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Unable to demonstrate compliance

The Second District’s score is low because evidence of notes in case files were provided for three of the six cases reviewed in which detectives appeared to have taken notes. Indeed, our audit found the Second District in 50% compliance. The problem immediately was brought to the attention of the Commander of the Second District, and the District has taken steps to resolve the non-compliance. The Monitoring Team plans to conduct a follow-up audit in the Second District in the near future to confirm these steps have been effective.
E. Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167 requires NOPD to “designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.” While all Districts and SOD have a designated interview room, some districts had failures when attempting to retrieve recordings.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS SOD

Compliant

NonCompliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 35 of 93 Page 35 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The Second District’s low level of compliance was due to malfunctioning audio and video equipment. None of the interrogation recordings we reviewed was clear enough to assess more than a negligible level compliance. The problems immediately were brought to the attention of the Commander of the Second District, and the District has taken steps to resolve the noncompliance. In the Eighth District, the interrogation room had inadequate placement of the microphone leading to failure to capture the audio portion of the recordings. NOPD stated the microphones were being replaced and the room would provide acceptable audio/video for future interrogations and audits. The Monitoring Team will conduct a follow-up audit in the near future to ensure these steps have been taken. The Special Victims Section was unable to demonstrate full compliance primarily due to malfunctioning recording equipment in some interrogation recordings. Moreover, on the day we audited, the Section’s L3 system was not being used even though Department officials had represented all L3 systems were functioning and in use. Further, SVS supervisors informed us that detectives do not yet have the capability to audio/video record interrogations in the field even though this is Consent Decree required.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 36 of 93
Page 36 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. DETECTIVE SELECTION
The Consent Decree covers detective selection in two paragraphs, 169 and 170. Paragraph 169 provides that “NOPD shall post all detective openings throughout the Department and shall revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview.” Paragraph 170 provides that “NOPD shall develop and deliver at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods.”
The Monitoring Team audited the Detective Selection elements of the Consent Decree in February, April, and May. Specifically, we audited Districts 2, 6, 8, and SVS on April 25-29, 2016 and Districts 1, 3 and SOD in May. NOPD demonstrated partial compliance in some districts, but was out of compliance in the Second District. The following summaries present our consolidated findings from our April/May audits.
A. Paragraph 169
With respect to paragraph 169, the First District was in partial compliance. The district was unable to document that one of its two recently-appointed detectives had the requisite experience or a supervisor recommendation.
The Second District likewise was unable to produce the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 169. One detective had served a one-day suspension in April 2015 for a violation of performance of duty, neglect of duty, and failing to take appropriate and necessary police action. While prior mistakes (and even some misconduct) do not disqualify one from being a great detective, when the supervisor was questioned about the reason for the suspension, he was unable to provide much information. It appeared he either didn’t know the reason for the suspension or was reluctant to discuss the reason. The Monitoring Team researched the matter further and obtained the information on our own. With that information in hand, it became clear the District had not adequately documented the detective’s selection process. The District also failed to have copies of writing samples as required in this paragraph, it failed to have a supervisor’s recommendation, and it failed to have any documentation of an interview process that all other detective interviews in the department have. Consequently, we find the Second District NOT in compliance with paragraph 169.
While the third and sixth districts reported no detective assignments since January 2016, the district did have three positions open and was receiving applications. The notices for the open positions included all of the consent decree requirements. Accordingly, we found the Third District in compliance.
The Eighth was able to demonstrate partial compliance, but not full compliance. For the most recent detective assigned, the District documented his experience level and writing samples, but
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 37 of 93
Page 37 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

was not able to produce evidence that a supervisor’s recommendation was considered or that an interview was conducted.
The Special Operations Division selected three detectives during this reporting period. The SOD advised the Monitoring Team that the detectives were selected according to job performance, writing skills, initiative, and willingness to work call-outs. However, there was no documentation regarding their experience level, writing samples, supervisor recommendations or interviews regarding their selection. Therefore, the SOD was NOT able to demonstrate compliance during this period.
B. Paragraph 170
Paragraph 170 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and deliver at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. The Consent Decree provides that the training shall include “legal standards, ethics, the mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions.” Further, NOPD must provide “regular, and at least annual, in-service training to all detectives on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions.” The police districts audited this period showed inconsistent performance under paragraph 170. Specifically, some current detectives have not had in-service training on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions, and others did not have the required training prior to be appointed as a detective.
NOPD primarily relies on a Federal Bureau of Investigations lesson plan for its detective training. The lesson plan does contain some information regarding legal standards and does mentions the word “ethics,” but it does not meet the Consent Decree requirements set forth above. The Monitoring Team brought this shortcoming to the attention of the NOPD, and the Department took action. Specifically, the Department engaged retired Deputy Chief Bouyelas, currently with the Orleans Parish DA’s office, to teach a two-hour segment of training on the second day of the new detectives’ five-day training. This new program was rolled out to new detectives the week of May 23, 2016.
While NOPD was not able to produce a lesson plan for Chief Bouyelas’s class, the class nonetheless was well thought out and well presented.7 The class covered most of the requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 170, including legal standards, the mechanics of conducting a constitutional investigation, and the causes for investigative failures. Further, Chief Bouyelas maintained the attention of the entire class throughout the training, something, from our experience, not all Academy instructors are able to do. He applied adult learning techniques by asking questions and involving the class in discussion.

7

The Monitoring Team expects to receive and will review the lesson plan to ensure future classes are taught

from an approved plan.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 38 of 93 Page 38 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com The Consent Decree also requires the detective training to cover Ethics as a core part of the training. While Chief Bouyelas certainly mentioned ethical concepts, the topic was not discussed in detail, which reflects a gap in the class and a non-compliance with Consent Decree paragraph 170. Ethics is such a critical component of custodial interrogations that it should be discussed in more detail and as a separate topic just as each of the other three components of the training.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 39 of 93
Page 39 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS
The Consent Decree requires NOPD to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. In April and May 2016, the Monitoring Team audited Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, as well as SVS and SOD. These audits follow prior audits of these and other districts in January and February 2016.
In general, NOPD showed improvements over our prior audits. Some districts showed significant improvement over our prior audits. The Third District, for example, demonstrated 100% compliance with all Consent Decree paragraphs regarding photographic line-ups. In contrast, other districts have room for continued improvement. Several districts, for example, despite an improved level of compliance, continue to use “filler photographs” (i.e., photographs in a photo line-up that are not of the actual subject) that were not similar to the subject photograph or did not resemble the suspect in significant features, and failed to document the statements made by the viewing individual.
Of particular note, the Monitoring Team identified multiple shortcomings in the Eighth District. Forms were not completed by investigating detectives to include the statements made by the person viewing the line-up. Some statements were fragmented and not understandable such as “the person running.” In addition, the first three cases used the same photo line-up that had six young men with dreadlocks. One man, the subject, had long dreadlocks with the bottom half of them dyed gold. Two men had dreadlocks with golden tints, and three men had black dreadlocks. The witness picked out the subject and wrote he would know the man due to his long dreadlocks that came out from under his hat.
The following subsections highlight the areas of compliance and non-compliance for the various districts audited this period. Where a District was unable to prove its compliance through adequate documentation, we recorded the District as “Unable to Demonstrate Compliance.” While these Districts actually may be IN compliance with the Consent Decree, it is the NOPD’s burden to demonstrate compliance; and where it does not do so we cannot find it in compliance.
A. Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171 provides that no officer involved in the investigation shall participate in administering the photographic lineup. Paragraph 171 further provides that the individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation. As indicated below, NOPD is in partial compliance with this paragraph.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 40 of 93 Page 40 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Following prior negative findings by the Monitoring Team, NOPD developed new forms to help drive compliance in this area. The new forms were well thought out and effective. The forms now have been in use since September 2014, and nearly all units are using them. Not all detectives, however, are completing the forms as required at all times. The inconsistent use of the forms, for example, prevented the Monitoring Team from finding the Eighth District in compliance with this Consent Decree requirement.
B. Paragraph 172
Paragraph 172 requires that, before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup. NOPD is in partial compliance with this requirement.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstate compliance

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 41 of 93 Page 41 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Here again, it is worth reiterating it is NOPD’s burden to demonstrate compliance per paragraph 486 of the Consent Decree. While the Special Victim’s Section may actually be meeting the requirements of paragraph 172, it was unable to demonstrate its compliance to the Monitoring Team during our audit.
C. Paragraph 173
Paragraph 173 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to select “filler” photographs – i.e., photographs that do not depict the suspect—of individuals who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator. According to the Consent Decree, “when there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features.”
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Unable to demonstrate compliance

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstate compliance

Unable to demonstate compliance

During our May audits, the First District, Eighth District, and the SVS unit failed to provide adequate documentation demonstrating their compliance with paragraph 173. The Eighth District was especially out of compliance. The Eighth District had a 75% compliance rate when the Monitoring Team audited this paragraph in February, and showed no improvement when we re-audited the district in April/May.
D. Paragraph 174
Paragraph 174 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to keep a complete record of each display procedure and the corresponding results. The Consent Decree provides “the record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up.” NOPD is in partial compliance with this obligation.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 42 of 93 Page 42 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstate compliance

With respect to SVS, the log provided to the Monitoring Team did not contain all the information required in paragraph 174 of the Consent Decree. When this was brought to the attention of SVS supervisors, a second log was prepared and provided that did include the detailed required by paragraph 174.
E. Paragraph 175
Paragraph 175 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to document “other information pertinent to the display procedure, including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure.” The NOPD demonstrated compliance only in the Third District this audit period.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Unable to demonstate compliance

Unable to demonstate compliance

Compliant

Unable to demonstate compliance

Unable to demonstate compliance

Unable to demonstate compliance

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 43 of 93 Page 43 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
While the First District was unable to demonstrate full compliance, it did show significant improvement from our first audit in February to our follow-up audit in May. The Monitoring Team’s February audit showed the District 35% compliant with respect to recording the statements of those present, and 78% compliant with respect to identifying other persons present. In May, these numbers moved to 53% and 100% respectively.
F. Paragraph 176
Paragraph 176 requires NOPD, if a suspect selection is made during a photographic lineup, “to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used.” The paragraph also requires NOPD to maintain the documentation “as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part of the permanent case file.” NOPD was mostly compliant with this paragraph during our April/May audit.
D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 SVS

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Unable to demonstate compliance

SVS was unable to provide copies of the photographs used in its line-up in 4 of the 15 cases we reviewed.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 44 of 93
Page 44 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS
Section IX of the Consent Decree requires NOPD, among other things, to “to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” At the outset of the Consent Decree, NOPD was not doing these things. In fact, even a year into the Consent Decree, the Department continued to be seriously out of compliance with Section IX. In November 2014, the New Orleans Inspector General issued a report identifying additional serious flaws in the NOPD SVS, including the following:
 Of 1,290 Item Numbers reviewed, only 179 (14%) contained supplemental reports documenting any additional investigative efforts beyond the initial report.
 Of 450 Item Numbers reviewed wherein initial reports were written or comments were made by the five detectives, 271 (60%) contained no supplemental reports documenting any investigative effort beyond the initial report.
 Five detectives, in 271 specific instances, either failed to provide documentation of investigative efforts or provided questionable documentation.
 NOPD supervisors failed to identify the problems concerning the documentation of investigative efforts by the five detectives for the three year period.
See New Orleans OIG Report 13-0017-I (November 12, 2014). Based on these findings, and others, the OIG observed that “[t]he widespread failure to submit supplemental reports as well as the discrepancies between reports and other factual documentation means there was no effective supervision of these five detectives over a 3-year period. Nor could there have been any effective supervision of the supervisors, nor any review of the outcome of the cases assigned to these five detectives.” Id.
Since the publication of the OIG’s report, the NOPD Special Victim’s Section has worked hard to turn itself around. The Monitoring Team, in cooperation with the OIG, has audited the SVS’s work throughout this process. While the road has been a long and hard one, we share the OIG’s recently reported view that NOPD’s SVS has made a “remarkable turnaround.” See New Orleans OIG Final Report (June 22, 2016).
On Thursday, August 18, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Susie Morgan presiding, held a public hearing focusing on the state of NOPD’s compliance under Section IX of the Consent Decree. In attendance were counsel for the United States, counsel for the City of New Orleans, four members of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team, NOPD leadership, and multiple members of the NOPD Special Victim’s
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 45 of 93
Page 45 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Section (“SVS”), including representatives from the SVS Sex Crimes Unit, Child Abuse Unit, and Domestic Violence Unit.
Additionally, due to the focus of this particular hearing, also in attendance were Ed Quatrevaux, the New Orleans Inspector General; Howard Schwartz, the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations; Ms. Tania Tetlow, law professor at Tulane and chair of the Mayor’s advisory committee on the reform of NOPD’s response to sexual assaults; Ms. Mary Claire Landry, Executive Director of the New Orleans Family Justice Center; and Ms. Amanda Tonkovich with the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”).8
Commander Doug Eckert, leader of the NOPD’s Criminal Investigations Division, made the initial presentation for the Department. After introducing his leadership team, Commander Eckert introduced the many officers, detectives, and civilians making up the sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and domestic violence units within the Special Victims Section (“SVS”). Following the introductions, Commander Eckert explained the structure of the SVS and highlighted the sizeable caseload the group handles with limited personnel.
Commander Eckert also discussed the New Orleans Inspector General’s November 2014 Report highlighting glaring inadequacies in the Department’s handling of sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Commander Eckert acknowledged the Department’s prior failings and explained the work undertaken to respond to the IG’s Report and to bring the SVS along the path toward full compliance with the Consent Decree.
Commander Eckert next turned the lectern over to the leader of the Section’s Domestic Violence Unit, Sergeant Rick Pari. Sgt. Pari explained the benefits of the Unit’s colocation in the New Orleans Family Justice Center, and of the strong partnership that has developed between the NOPD and the Family Justice Center over the years. Sgt. Pari explained how the NOPD incorporates the resources of the FJC in its “street level” work by, among other things, handing out Family Justice Center literature to victims to make them aware of the services available to them – a practice that did not occur in the past. Sgt. Pari also explained the importance of the comprehensive domestic violence policy developed in partnerships with the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office, the Mayor’s Task Force, and several advocacy groups, including the Family Justice Center.
Sgt. Pari next discussed the Blueprint for Safety, a project initiated by the City in October 2014 with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. The Blueprint for Safety introduced a coordinated criminal justice response to domestic violence cases from 911 calls through probation and parole. Sgt. Pari explained some of the significant

8

This summary borrows heavily, often verbatim, from the Court’s official summary of the hearing

proceedings. The Monitoring Team presented its report on the improvement within SVS at the public

hearing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 46 of 93
Page 46 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
benefits the Blueprint for Safety has had on civilians in New Orleans, and on the Police Department.
Following Sgt. Pari’s comments, Commander Eckert walked the Court through the efforts and accomplishments of the Special Victim’s Section’s Sex Crimes Unit. Among other things, Commander Eckert highlighted the close working relationship between the NOPD and the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”), the Department’s improved processes for handling sexual assault reporting and investigations, and a vastly enhanced protocol for processing sexual assault kits. Commander Eckert also discussed some of the Department’s staffing changes that have materially contributed to better police responses for survivors, including more detectives, additional civilian investigators, and the engagement of in-house social workers.
Commander Eckert ended his comments by acknowledging the invaluable assistance SVS has received from the Family Justice Center, the New Orleans Inspector General, the advocacy groups, and the Consent Decree Monitoring Team.
Following the Department’s SA/DV presentation, the Court heard from Monitoring Team member Chief Mary Ann Viverette. Chief Viverette began her presentation by describing the problems initially identified by the Department of Justice and confirmed by the Monitoring Team following the Team’s appointment in August 2013. Chief Viverette also described the slow start the Department had between August 2013 and March 2015. The appointment of Commander Eckert over the SVS in March 2015, however, according to Chief Viverette, marked a turning point in the Department’s compliance efforts. Chief Viverette reemphasized the high degree of cooperation and support the Department receives from the advocacy groups, including the Family Justice Center, the Sexual Assault Response Team, and the Mayor’s Committee. Chief Viverette also highlighted the instrumental role the Inspector General played in helping the Section move forward.
Chief Viverette described the Monitoring Team’s process for monitoring SVS progress, including reviewing policies, observing and evaluating training, reviewing BWC camera footage, and conducting regular on-site audits. Chief Viverette echoed the IG’s finding that both the Sex Crimes Unit and the Domestic Violence Unit had made a “remarkable turnaround” over the past two years.
One area Chief Viverette identified as needing additional attention is the response of NOPD’s patrol officers to domestic violence calls for service. While the Monitoring Team has seen significant improvement over the past 2-3 years, and has been extremely impressed in particular with the improvements of the SVS detectives, the Monitoring Team’s audits still identify more room for growth with respect to patrol officers. Specifically, the Monitoring Team’s last audit identified 35% of patrol officer responses leaving room for improvement. A portion of these were the result of the Department’s inability to make it to the call in enough
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 47 of 93
Page 47 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
time to meet with the complainant, a problem the Department’s new call-back procedures will help alleviate.
Chief Viverette concluded her remarks by reiterating what was a clear theme of the hearing: “So in conclusion, we have seen improvement since I’ve been reviewing and monitoring over the last three years in both the sexual assault area and domestic violence. I can’t say enough about the current leadership and the supervision in both units. They’re committed, they’re effective, and they deal with things seriously and quickly when I ask them to do so.”
The United States Department of Justice next offered the Court its view of the current state of SVS compliance. After reiterating the positive comments made by the earlier speakers, lead counsel Emily Gunston asked the Court to consider the impact these improvements have had on countless individuals’ lives: “When we first came into the department, we did our investigation and we found this wasn’t being handled well; that . . . meant women were being discriminated against; it meant women were living in fear, living in terror; dangerous criminals were being left on the street; let alone the effect it has on somebody to feel like nobody cares that this is happening to me and nobody is going to do anything about it.”
Ms. Gunston went on to contrast the past with the Department’s recent improvements: “When this is done well, as the New Orleans Police Department is doing now, it can be hard to measure the effect that you’re having on people’s lives. It’s hard to know how many women are no longer living in terror or no longer being victimized. But one thing that we can look at and I want to focus on [is] the increase in reporting. That is an extraordinary number that is a real testament to the work that you’ve done.”
Ms. Gunston went on further to “commend the police department [for its] real openness to learning.” “The police departments who are insular,” she explained, “are having problems, and world-class police departments have this kind of open-mindedness.” “[T]he work that you’ve done here gives me confidence that that kind of work can be done in the rest of the police department as well.”
Ms. Gunston concluded as follows: “What you have now are policies that are a model for the rest of the nation – and NOPD is not the only police department that was having this problem. Lots of departments are having this problem. And when they come to us now and they say, ‘How do we fix this,’ one of the things we can say to them is, ‘You know what? You-all should go look and see what the New Orleans Police Department is doing because they have some of the best policies in the nation on this.’”
In addition to hearing from the Parties and the Monitoring Team, the Court heard from several stakeholders.
Professor Tania Tetlow spoke first and described the committee the Mayor established to reform the police department’s SVS. After praising the work the Department had done to meet the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 48 of 93
Page 48 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Mayor’s direction and the Consent Decree’s obligations, Professor Tetlow described the achievements that she has seen so far. “I think the greatest measure of the results have been the trust shown by victims in the increase in reporting which has been an increase of 83 percent of reporting in 2015 of sexual assaults and a projected increase of 78 percent in 2016. That’s . . . the greatest sign of trust from the community.”
Notably, as the Department of Justice explained later in the hearing, these numbers do not reflect an increase in sexual assault, but rather an increase in victims’ willingness to report sexual assault. According to the Department of Justice, “one of the ways we know that -- one of the ways we knew there was a problem -- is that the numbers [of reported sex crimes] didn’t make sense relative to the rest of the crime rate. And as those numbers go up and they make more sense, what that reflects is an increase in reporting, not an uptick in the crime. What that means is that people -- mostly women -- who at one point thought, ‘No one is going to help me, and I need to try to deal with this on my own,’ now are saying to themselves, ‘I’m going to go to the New Orleans Police Department, and the people there are going to help.’”
Professor Tetlow concluded her remarks with the following praise for NOPD’s accomplishments in this area: “So this has been an extraordinary accomplishment that I can’t tell you how impressed I’ve been by NOPD, by the City. Everything we’ve done, we’ve worked together with them. They never tell us no. The chief works closely in partnership with all of the advocate community in ways that he really sees this as the work we do together.”
The New Orleans Office of the Inspector General next addressed the Court. Howard Schwartz, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, presented the IG’s remarks. Mr. Schwartz walked the Court through the “really disturbing” problems his office identified during its 2014 audit and investigation. Mr. Schwartz explained that walking through the negative history was important in order to contrast that history with how much the Department has changed in the past two years.
Mr. Schwartz emphasized that the Department took full responsibility for the problems identified by the IG, and initiated an immediate action plan to fix them. “From the inception, . . . when we told Chief Harrison of what we had found, from day one, Chief Harrison and his staff, including Chief Westbrook and her staff, [were] unbelievably professional. [We had] fantastic cooperation from day one.” Mr. Schwartz went on to illustrate the importance of the Department’s response by noting “this is the first time I can say the police department has taken complete responsibility for their actions and that is the reason for this transformation.” Mr. Schwartz reemphasized the remarkable turnaround he has seen, and concluded his remarks by thanking the men and women of the SVS units.
The Court next heard from Ms. Mary Claire Landry of the New Orleans Family Justice Center, who described the strong partnership between the NOPD SVS and the Center. Ms. Landry also praised a number of other groups involved in the NOPD SVS transformation. In Ms. Landry’s view, the NOPD’s success in this area has been due to an “integrated response.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 49 of 93 Page 49 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
“It’s not one nonprofit; it’s not one public entity; it’s not one governmental structure,” she explained. “It’s all of us looking at what is creating the crime in our community and what is creating so much of the violence and the poverty in our community.” Ms. Landry added, “I can say without equivocation that the progress that we have seen finally over these last two years has been amazing and I’m probably the only person in the City that thanks God for the Consent Decree because I know it’s been painful and I know it’s been difficult and it’s created a lot of challenges, but I think it has brought the reform and the oversight and the accountability that survivors have needed in this community.” Finally, the Court heard from Ms. Amanda Tonkovich, with the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team (“SART”). Ms. Tonkovich began by describing her recollections of the prior state of NOPD’s sexual assault response. She then contrasted this with the far different state of affairs she has seen over the past year. Ms. Tonkovich commented on the improved policies, improved training, improved leadership, and a strong cooperative spirit among the NOPD and its many partners, including SART. Ms. Tonkovich concluded her remarks with the following observation: “[N]ow we can really confidently say that when a police [officer] comes -- when someone from the sex crimes unit comes, the Domestic Violence Unit, they are traumainformed. They understand how victims act in trauma and they’re going to have a compassionate initial response and interview; and I don’t have to worry anymore that we’re going to have to protect survivors from a law enforcement response or butt heads.”
* * * While the Monitoring Team, for good reason, is quite pleased with the turnaround of NOPD’s sex assault and domestic violence units, we continue to conduct regular audits and reviews of both units. Our most recent review demonstrated both units continue to show a very high level of compliance. The detailed results of that audit will be published in our next report.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 50 of 93
Page 50 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The Monitoring Team has criticized the NOPD’s approach to community policing in the past. Rather than implementing a comprehensive, department-wide strategy and recognizing the benefits that would come from such an approach, NOPD instead relied on dedicated Community Coordinating (“CoCo”) Sergeants and Quality of Life (“QOL”) officers in the various districts and a general policy of encouraging officers to attend community events.
In January 2016, the Department announced it was doing away with its CoCo and QOL officers in an effort to transfer more officers to the street to answer calls for service. While fully supporting the Department’s goal of getting more officers on the streets, the Monitoring Team expressed concern over the loss of these dedicated district-level community resources. Specifically, the Monitoring Team expressed concern that the Department took this step before it had true community policing to put in its place.
In an effort to create an effective community policing strategy, the Department assigned a lieutenant (Lieutenant Williams) to develop and implement a department-wide community policing approach. The core of the Department’s new philosophy is to engage all members of the NOPD in community policing by (a) developing a Department-wide mission and strategy, (b) teaching officers community policing skills, (c) giving them time in their day to engage with the community, and (c) holding them accountable for doing so. While the Monitoring Team commends the Department on its effort to expand officer involvement in its community policing efforts, we question whether one lieutenant has the bandwidth to pull off such a bold program – even a lieutenant as qualified and committed as Lieutenant Williams seems to be.
To better monitor and support NOPD’s new community policing project, the Monitoring Team has modified the way we plan to evaluate the City’s community policing efforts. The Monitoring Team’s new approach reflects our goal of monitoring not just community interaction, but rather true community engagement, i.e., community policing. Our approach also reflects the fact that community engagement issues are scattered throughout the Consent Decree. Indeed, there are many provisions of the Consent Decree that related directly and indirectly to community engagement, but are not part of the section, such as stops, searches and arrests, biasfree policing, including gender bias, supervision, etc. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that virtually the entirety of the Consent Decree concerns community policing.
Due to the scattered nature of community policing concepts throughout the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team decided to adopt a holistic approach to assessing community engagement/ community policing. Rather than focusing on checking off boxes that may or may not lead to actual community policing, the Monitoring Team’s approach focuses on supporting the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 51 of 93
Page 51 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
development of a best-in-class community oriented policing program and then monitoring NOPD’s progress toward achieving that best-in-class end goal.9
The Monitoring Team has been working closely with Lieutenant Williams as she develops the details of the new program, and will continue to do so until it is implemented. While we have been impressed by Lt. Williams’ ideas and her passion, we continue to believe the Department needs to give greater focus (and resources) to this critical element of the Consent Decree. We firmly believe that building stronger partnerships between the police and the community is a critical step toward building trust, promoting citizen cooperation, and fighting crime.

9

It should be noted, if we did focus our efforts on “checking off boxes,” there would not be sufficient boxes

checked off in this area. While most districts do engage with their communities through various meetings, events,

and other initiatives, the Districts we audited this period all were unable to demonstrate full compliance with the

community engagement elements of this Consent Decree because the Department as a whole lacks a Department-

wide community engagement / community policing plan. The Department’s elimination of the COCO/QOL

programs before a substitute program was put in its place has made it harder for the Districts to demonstrate

compliance with their obligations. As described above, the Department is in the process of working on a new

community engagement/community policing plan, which should remedy the current gaps in the various districts.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 52 of 93
Page 52 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. RECRUITMENT
Section XI of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop and implement a comprehensive recruitment program that successfully attracts and hires a diverse group of highly qualified and ethical individuals to be NOPD police officers.” Since the outset of the Consent Decree, NOPD has dedicated much attention to its recruiting efforts. Among other things, as we have noted in the past, NOPD has shortened the hiring process, engaged more staff to conduct background investigations, worked with local businesses to improve the interview structure, and developed a new marketing campaign designed to attract new officers from New Orleans and across the country.
This past period, NOPD undertook additional efforts to bolster its recruiting practices, including the following:
 Developed a one-stop recruiting process so candidates can get most of the process done in one visit.
 Assumed control of much of the recruiting process from the Civil Service Commission, which has shortened the time it takes to vet new officers.
 Expanded its out-of-state recruiting to include visits to colleges and military bases outside of Louisiana.
 Implemented onsite testing so recruits can be tested without having to travel to New Orleans.
 Updated its recruiting web site to provide more information for candidates and to be mobile friendly.
Additionally, as noted in our prior report, the Department has engage Louisiana Tech University to develop a new test for new recruits. La Tech already has conducted a thorough “job study” to identify the qualifications an effective test needs to test for, developed a catalog of potential new test questions, and now is in the process of working with NOPD and the Monitoring Team to vet the new questions. According to LA Tech, the new test should be ready for implementation in September.
In addition to the new multiple choice test, the Department also will be implementing a new test that assesses a recruit’s writing ability as well as a new oral assessment that, unlike the Department’s prior assessment, allows interviewers to ask follow-up questions, probe responses, and otherwise evaluate the candidate as a whole. The Monitoring Team will be reviewing and commenting all each new element of the Department’s recruitment process.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 53 of 93
Page 53 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVI. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING
A. Academy In General
As noted above, the Monitoring Team continues to be concerned with the progress being made at the NOPD Academy. Indeed, this has been a consistent negative finding by the Monitoring Team. We previously have criticized the quality (and, sometimes, the existence of) lesson plans, curriculum, training materials, and the quality of the classroom teaching by the instructors. We have observed a lack of consistent quality instruction, poor organization, and poor discipline in class, with students (in-service students; not recruits) texting, not paying attention, and even leaving class to take cell phone calls. Our more recent audits confirm the Academy still is not in compliance with the Consent Decree with respect to some of these areas; and, as importantly, our observations of officers on the streets emphasize the need for additional and/or more effective training. While recent progress clearly has been made – for example, the most recent in-service classes we reviewed were far more disciplined and focused than prior classes – progress still is inconsistent and insufficient.
NOPD recently responded to the Monitoring Team’s concerns by making another change to the Academy leadership team. In addition to a new Deputy Chief over the Department’s Management Services Bureau (Chief John Thomas) and a new Commander of the Academy (Commander Chris Goodly) – both of whom have demonstrated a clear commitment to reform – the Department recently hired its first Academic Director, Dr. Deirdre Magee. Dr. Magee brings to the Academy a wealth of knowledge and experience designing, implementing, and evaluating academic programs outside the police environment. We are hopeful the combination of Chief Thomas, Commander Goodly, and Dr. Magee will move the Academy toward compliance. We remain concerned however, the Academy simply lacks sufficient personnel and resources to move forward effectively and in a timely fashion.
Notwithstanding the Academy’s insufficient prior progress and the Monitoring Team’s ongoing concerns, the Academy has achieved some noteworthy accomplishments worthy of recognition. One such accomplish is the Department’s partnership with the Innocence Project New Orleans to develop and provide specialized training to new detectives.
In the words of its leadership, the Innocence Project New Orleans
is a nonprofit law office that represents innocent prisoners serving life sentences in Louisiana and Mississippi at no cost to them or their loved ones, and assists them with their transition into the free world upon their release. IPNO uses its cases to explain how wrongful convictions happen and what we can all do to prevent them. IPNO works with legislators, judges, lawyers, law enforcement and policymakers to protect the innocent within the criminal justice system.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 54 of 93
Page 54 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
www.ip-no.org. Like the NOPD, the Innocence Project New Orleans has a vested interest in promoting professional, thorough, and legal criminal investigations by police officers. Recognizing this shared interest, NOPD and the Innocence Project New Orleans partnered to coteach an investigations course to NOPD detectives.
The Monitoring Team commends NOPD for its willingness to work with the Innocence Project to implement such an innovate training program for its officers. As far as we know, this may be the first police agency/Innocence Project training partnership in the United States.
The Monitoring Team attended the Department’s first detective class taught in conjunction with the Innocence Project New Orleans. The instruction team included members of the NOPD, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Innocence Project. Emily Maw, the director of the Innocence Project New Orleans and a highly energetic and passionate advocate for unassailable police investigations, began the class by introducing the Innocence Project New Orleans and highlighting the successes the group has had representing innocent people convicted of crimes. She stated they are one of the most successful innocence projects in the country. She said they have read hundreds of police reports on serious crimes. The cases they review include people who have generally been in prison for more than 20 years. She discussed the lack of time limits they have to review case files as opposed to police officers that have relatively short periods of time to investigate cases. Ms. Maw explained that most wrongful convictions were not the result of bad intent by officers but through sloppy police work.
Through a combination of lecture, discussion, and hands-on exercise, the training program highlighted techniques to help detectives conduct better, more thorough, and more accurate investigations. The training also focused on the subject of mistaken identifications. This part of the training began with a short video and an interactive session to discuss the positives and negatives of the scene in the video. The second video was of a line-up and engaged officers to try to pick out the suspect in the line-up. This exercise was discussed later in the class and quite successfully highlighted the difficulties and risks of eyewitness identification. A third video was provided and the students were asked to write down information they observed in the video. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate how when people focus on one subject they miss other important information that is occurring at the same time. The information for that exercise was discussed immediately following the video.
The class also discussed the importance of documenting all elements of the investigation. An instructor from the DA’s office, Chief Bouyelas, highlighted the importance of proper documentation. The Monitoring Team was quite pleased to see this element incorporated into training because our audits have found highly inconsistent results in these areas during our audits of consent decree monitoring of paragraphs 171 through 176.
Among other things, the class focused on dealing with lying witnesses, false confessions and voluntary confessions; the risks of making false assumptions and succumbing to tunnel vision
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 55 of 93 Page 55 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
when focusing on one subject, and risks of false memories, and other common cognitive illusions and biases of officers.
Finally, the training program ended with a robust discussion of some basic tools for conducting better investigations, including:
1. Leaving the eyewitness line-up to later in the investigation since it is the least reliable information.
2. Be over inclusive with information instead of following information that will lead to one person.
3. Conduct follow-up investigations, don’t develop tunnel vision and avoid checking other important information.
4. Don’t consider the case completed just because an arrest was made.
The Monitoring Team was impressed by this training program. The topic was important, the instruction was impressive, and the exercises were instructive. The instructors held the attention of a majority of the class during the training and all of the class at some points. All instructors employed adult learning techniques by asking questions, involving the class in discussion, and utilizing class exercises. It was obvious the presenters were very knowledgeable in the subject of photo line-ups. The information relayed is important for the detectives who will use what they learned in future investigations.
In addition to the Innocence Project training, the Monitoring Team observed a number of other Academy courses, including other detective training courses, crime scene investigation course, dealing with hearing impaired subjects, defensive tactics, and firearms, among others.
B. Classroom Size
Consent Decree paragraph 273 provides that recruit classes shall not exceed 30 candidates per class. Earlier this year, the Department exceeded this limit. While the Monitoring Team understands NOPD’s desire to bring more officers onto the force, the Consent Decree’s size requirements were incorporated into the Consent Decree for a reason. The size of an Academy class is an important component of the effectiveness of the Academy’s training program.
Among other things, classes that are too large:
 Lead to significant erosion of classroom/contact hours.
 Take longer to transition between classes and class types, which erode away valuable classroom/contact time needed for learning. For example, more time is needed for
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 56 of 93 Page 56 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recruits to transition from physical training into classroom attire. The training days generally are not lengthened to accommodate for these disruptions. Similarly, larger classes often lead to facility shortages.
 Create hurdles for the planning of curriculum, classes, and class organization. They require additional academy staff to instruct , monitor, and evaluate. Even if the same instructors are used for the classes, larger class sizes create organization hurdles and cause some classes to be taught out of order, eliminating the benefits that come with teaching courses in a certain progressive order.
 Cause problems with the FTO program. The cadre of available FTOs is generally optimized to meet average class loads. Additional recruits require additional FTOS which themselves require a selection process to identify , select and train the best qualified candidates. The increase in the number of FTOs could have resulting quality consequences.
 Increase the likelihood that students will not pay attention in class and that instructors will not be able to maintain adequate class discipline.
In light of the ongoing challenges at the Academy, the Monitoring Team and the Court directed the NOPD to provide the Court with a plan showing that an increase in class size will not negatively impact the quality of Academy training.
The initial information purportedly supporting its request to increase class size was insufficient. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team went back to the Police Department with additional specific questions, including the following:
 What are all of the classes NOPD offers to the current Academy and expects to offer in the upcoming Academy?
 Of those classes, which does NOPD propose to provide in 40-person settings?
 How will you address the need for physical skills classes which require a smaller student to instructor ratio?
 Of the remaining classes, identify by class name what sizes the classes will be and where the NOPD will teach them?
 Identify the Instructors for all of the classes.
 What will you be doing to address Instructor fatigue and morale?
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 57 of 93
Page 57 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 The availability of instructors has been a problem in the past. Specifically, how are you addressing this concern?
 Identify the approved lesson plans for all of the classes, or, if there is not an approved lesson plan, specify the date by which the NOPD will provide it for OCDM and DOJ review.
 What is the current status of the FTO Program? How will you address the need for additional FTO’s on the street (see below)?
In July 2016, the Court approved a slight increase in class size following NOPD’s responses to the Monitoring Team’s questions and the Department’s commitment to a plan to help mitigate the risks inherent in larger class sizes. The Department has alerted the Monitoring Team that it will request a further increase in class size. The Monitoring Team has made clear to the Department, however, that it will not support a further increase until the Department is able to convincingly give assurances that the risks outlined above are mitigated.
C. Ethical Policing Is Courageous (“EPIC”)
Earlier this year, NOPD began implementing what is perhaps the country’s first comprehensive police peer intervention training program. The program, called EPIC, for Ethical Policing is Courageous, was designed by NOPD officers with the support of national experts, community members, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team, and is worthy of high praise.
NOPD describes EPIC as an officer survival program, a community safety program, and a job satisfaction program. Having reviewed all aspects of the EPIC program, the Monitoring Team agrees with this characterization. EPIC reflects a cultural change in policing that gives officers the tools to intervene before misconduct or mistakes take place, encourages them to use those tools courageously, and then protects officers when they do. EPIC not only empowers officers to step in and say to a colleague “don’t do what you are about to do; you will regret it forever,” but it transforms such interventions into a career survival skill that is teachable and that is expected from all officers. The Monitoring Team is extremely impressed with the program. EPIC not only responds to the Consent Decree requirements to incorporate peer intervention training into NOPD training (e.g., CD paragraph 109, 266, etc.), but EPIC goes beyond what is required of the Consent Decree.
According to NOPD’s EPIC Teacher’s Manual (excerpts from which are attached to this report as an Appendix):
Police officers today readily understand what an active bystander is because they take on that role every day as they interact with the community. Officers step in to help others all the time. However, officers are far less quick to step in to stop a fellow officer from
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 58 of 93 Page 58 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
doing something wrong, unethical, dangerous, or even illegal or immoral. EPIC seeks to overcome this disconnect, to inculcate active bystandership into everything an officer does, and to provide officers with the tools and resources needed to do it well.
NOPD’s EPIC program strives to redefine police culture so that intervention to prevent or stop harmful action is not an exception to good teamwork, it is the very definition of good teamwork. The Monitoring Team has met with NOPD’s leadership team, its EPIC working group, and the outside experts supporting the development of the program, and is convinced not only of the quality of the program, but of NOPD leadership’s commitment to the program as well.
To date, NOPD has achieved the following milestones in its EPIC development and implementation plan:
 Developed the program’s concept, mission, and structure.
 Prepared first-rate teaching materials.
 Trained members of NOPD’s leadership, including Superintendent Harrison, his deputy chiefs, and the rest of his command staff.
 Trained sergeants and FTOs.
 Initiated training of all patrol officers.
Additionally, NOPD is in the process of supplementing the ongoing EPIC training with the following elements:
 Peer intervention elements will be incorporated into every Academy training program, so, for example, peer intervention will be taught not only as a stand-alone concept, but also as a fundamental component of other substantive areas, including Use of Force, investigations, Stops/Search/Arrests, and more.
 NOPD has authorized a new EPIC pin as an official element of an officer’s uniform. The pin not only signifies the officer has been through EPIC peer intervention training, but, more importantly, serves as a visual reminder that the wearer of the pin gives permission to others (regardless of rank) to intervene in the wearer’s actions.
 With the support of the University of New Orleans, NOPD will be developing a national peer intervention web site, which will provide officers across the country a forum for sharing their peer intervention strategies, tactics, and success stories.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 59 of 93 Page 59 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 NOPD is developing a reinforcement program so that the core components of peer intervention are reinforced through roll call training, comstat presentations, and other internal awareness campaigns.
Without question, a peer intervention program is not a panacea for all the problems facing U.S. police departments today, or even for the specific hurdles still facing NOPD, but credit clearly must be given to the NOPD for developing such an innovative and important program that holds so much promise for police officers and civilians. The Monitoring Team firmly believes NOPD’s EPIC program will become a model of ethical policing that other police agencies across the country soon will follow, and will continue to monitor its implementation closely.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 60 of 93
Page 60 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XVII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
Section XIII of the Consent Decree provides that NOPD shall “provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing.” Following a slow start, NOPD has made recent significant progress in expanding its officer assistance and support program. The Monitoring Team continues to monitor NOPD’s progress in this area, and noted the following accomplishments during the first two quarters of 2016:
 To date, 81 officers, and/or family members have accessed NOPD’s OAP program to receive in-house services and/or referrals to outside professionals/agencies for effective care.
 The Monitoring Team reviewed and approved NOPD’s newly-developed OAP policies and procedures.
 The Director and Clinical Coordinator of the OAP program continues to facilitate and/or participate in weekly in-service trainings for officers. The training consists of seven hours CIT training and one hour in Officer Assistance. The class consists of education on officer stress, effects of stress, signs and symptoms that would benefit from assistance from OAP programs as well as services that are offered through the assistance program.
 The Policy for the OAP Peer Support Program (known as the New Orleans Police Peer Assistance, “NOPPA”) has been completed and submitted to DOJ for final review.
 The OAP developed and began to roll out the NOPPA campaign. OAP leadership will be attending NOPD roll calls to reinforce this program and the needs for participation. The Southern Law Enforcement Foundation10 has committed to providing a free 3-day training for Peer Counselors once the first enrollees have been identified. OAP will begin interviews for Peer Support Counselors in the coming weeks.
 A new OAP program is known as the “Family Boot Camp” which consists of a half-day program for families of new officers two weeks prior to their graduation. This program is currently in the development phase. The boot camp will familiarize family members with OAP services for officers and family members. The camp will also inform family members of common stress related issues for officers and their significant others and resources that will now be available to them.

10

The SLE Foundation’s mission is to support police officers who “go through a critical incident and help

them to reduce the negative impact of that critical stress through sound crisis intervention methods.” See

www.slefoundation.com.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 61 of 93 Page 61 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com As we have said before, the emotional health of police officers correlates with community safety. Emotionally healthy officers are safer officers, more likely to exhibit patience, more likely to apply de-escalation techniques, and more likely to follow rules. Accordingly, NOPD’s OAP efforts are important not only for the health and wellness of NOPD’s rank and file, but equally important for the health and wellness of the New Orleans community.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 62 of 93
Page 62 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. SUPERVISION
A. Quarterly Supervision Audit Results
The Monitoring Team audited the supervision paragraphs of the Consent Decree in February, April, and May, 2016. Our audits covered Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, as well as SVS and SOD. While NOPD has shown improvement in many areas over the past year, its level of compliance continues to be inconsistent, and supervision generally continues to be a core area of concern for the Monitoring Team. Without close and effective supervision, NOPD is unable to ensure its officers improve and grow professionally, police actively and effectively, and avoid misconduct. It is no exaggeration to say full and effective supervision is a critical element of constitutional policing without which a Department’s other efforts are doomed to fail.
1. Duties of Supervisors
a. Paragraph 306
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree provides that supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers. Close and effective supervision requires that supervisors: respond to the scene of certain arrests; review each arrest report; respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT); review the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports; respond to each complaint of misconduct; ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and provide counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties.
As documented in the Monitoring Team’s prior reports, most NOPD districts have had a hard time demonstrating compliance with this requirement in the past. Most districts, however, also showed improvement over the past quarter. Districts 1 and 3, for example, showed dramatic improvement from our prior audit to our most recent audit. In those districts, and others, the use of force reports in their files are more complete than they were in prior audits. The officer daily activity reports also are more complete, and generally provide evidence they were reviewed by supervisors.
Most districts also now are able to provide well-maintained citizen complaint logs to register citizen complaints registered at the district or on the street. Most districts also are now providing evidence of compliance with counseling and redirection of personnel.
This being said, the NOPD apparently still has not provided direction in regard to documenting and tracking information to provide evidence of “supervisors ensure officers work actively to engage the community and increase public trust” or with providing “officer support.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 63 of 93 Page 63 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
With that as background, the following summarizes the level of compliance we are seeing in the various districts for the various obligations under this paragraph.

Supervisors Respond to Scene of Arrests Supervisors Review Arrest Reports Supervisors Respond to and Investigate Uses of Force Supervisors Review Daily Activity Reports Supervisors Respond to and Investigate Citizen Complaints Supervisors Ensure Officers Engage With Community Supervisors Provide Counseling & Redirectio n Supervisors Support Officers As Needed

1D Compliant Compliant Unable to

Compliant Unable to Unable to Compliant Partial

Demonstrate

Demonstrate Demonstrate

2D Compliant Compliant Partial

Unable

Compliant

Unable to Compliant Partial Demonstrate

3D Compliant Compliant Unable to

Compliant Partial

Demonstrate

Unable to Partial Demonstrate

Unable to Demonstrate

6D Compliant Compliant Unable to

Compliant Compliant Unable to

Partial

Demonstrate

Demonstrate

Partial

8D Not

Partial

compliant

Not compliant

Unknown11 Unable to Unable to Partial Demonstrate Demonstrate

Unable to Demonstrate

SOD Compliant Compliant Compliant

Compliant Compliant

Unable to Partial Demonstrate

Unable to Demonstrate

Of note in the above summary is that the Eighth District was unable to provide documentation that its supervisors responded to the scene of certain arrests. And, in fact, the contemporaneous documents made clear the supervisors were not on those scenes. This is contrary to the requirements of the Consent Decree. See Consent Decree ¶ 306.
Additionally, the Eighth District was not able to demonstrate compliance with its force investigation procedures. Of the use of force reports reviewed, at least 13 lacked necessary information.
In contrast, the Second District showed significant improvement over prior audits. It received a partial compliance in the area of investigating uses of force only because one report did not

11

As a result of its inability to demonstrate compliance with multiple elements of this Consent Decree

paragraph, the audit of the Eighth District was not completed. Instead, NOPD leadership and the leadership

of the Eighth District were called into Court to appear before Judge Morgan to discuss the non-compliance

and present a “get-well” plan.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 64 of 93
Page 64 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

mention whether the supervisor conducted a canvass, and two of three officers didn’t have recordings.

The Sixth District did send supervisors to the scene of uses of force, however, its records were insufficient and, consequently, it was unable to demonstrate supervisors fully investigated all uses of force. Specifically, four different cases audited lacked evidence that the investigation involved a canvas or a supervisor assessment of the use of force. It is very possible these steps were taken, but unless the District can demonstrate compliance, the Monitoring Team will not assume compliance.

b. Paragraph 307

Paragraph 307 of the Consent Decree provides that all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor. The NOPD was able to demonstrate partial compliance with this requirement as indicated below.

Patrol

General Assignments

Investigators

1D Compliant

Compliant

Partial Compliance

2D Compliant 3D Compliant 5D Compliant 8D Compliant

Compliant Partial Compliance Partial Compliance Partial Compliance

Partial Compliance Compliant Partial Compliance Audit Deferred

It should be noted, the work schedules in some districts are printed months in advance and often are inaccurate to determine compliance with paragraphs 307-310. The only means of auditing what days officers worked and under whose supervision is to query the NOPD payroll system and analyze payroll data. These districts would benefit from better record keeping procedures.
c. Paragraph 308
Paragraph 308 requires that Task force and narcotics supervisors “actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill.” The Consent Decree further provides that “Investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 65 of 93
Page 65 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap.” NOPD is not yet in compliance with its obligations under paragraph 308.

General Assignments

Investigators

1D

Compliant

Compliant

2D

Partial Compliance

Compliant

3D

Partial Compliance

Compliant

6D

Unable to Demonstrate Compliance Partial Compliance

8D

Not Yet Compliant

Unable to Demonstrate Compliance

Of particular note in the above table, obviously, is the Eighth District. With the merger of task force and narcotics personnel into the General Assignments section of the district, the sole task force supervisor no longer works the same shift and days as the officers assigned to the supervisor. This issue has been brought to the attention of the Eighth District leadership, which is working to remedy the issue.
d. Paragraph 309
Paragraph 309 requires that all District Platoon Patrol supervisors be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill. The NOPD was in full compliance in all districts audited this period.
e. Paragraph 310
Paragraph 310 of the Consent Decree requires that first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers. The Consent Decree further provides that “on duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units.”
The Monitoring Team’s review of NOPD personnel records demonstrated that each officer and supervisor was assigned to a single supervisor in most districts. Generally, there were at least three supervisors assigned to a platoon with 8 -12 officers. When a sergeant is not on duty in the General Assignments unit, those detectives/officers are supervised by the platoon supervisor. There are times that there are more than eight personnel reporting to one supervisor when

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 66 of 93
Page 66 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

investigators and/or general assignments officers work while reporting to a platoon supervisor when there was only one platoon supervisor on duty. Our findings with respect to the specific districts audited this period follow.
The First District was able to demonstrate Partial Compliance. Generally, platoon supervisors do not supervise more than eight personnel. However, there are times when the supervisor/ subordinate ratio exceeds 1:8, for example when investigators and/or general assignments officers work while reporting to a platoon supervisor when there was only one platoon supervisor on duty.12
The Second District was unable to demonstrate compliance during this period.
Notwithstanding some days of imperfect compliance due to the unavailability of supervisors for various reasons, the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Districts were able to demonstrate partial compliance with its obligations under this paragraph.
f. Paragraph 311
Paragraph 311 requires NOPD to develop and implement a program “to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable.” NOPD further must “ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent non-acting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks.” The NOPD is NOT yet in compliance with this requirement. The Training Academy has not developed training or trained any personnel as acting patrol supervisors; and no program current exists to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in for assigned supervisors.
g. Paragraph 312
Paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree provides that District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command. To this end, all NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants “shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement.”
The Monitoring Team has criticized the sufficiency of NOPD’s supervision practices since the outset of the Consent Decree. As noted in the introduction to this Report, our primary criticism is that may sergeants and lieutenants lack the time and/or resources to adequately supervise the patrol officers under their command. We also have seen inconsistent competence by supervisors

12

NOPD does not designate “acting sergeants,” which makes it more difficult to maintain the required

supervisor/patrol officer ratio.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 67 of 93
Page 67 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

at the scene of events, which the Monitoring Team believes could be mitigated by more and/or better training. We continue to view this as a serious problem, and continue to view supervision generally as a core area of concern.
In addition to our general concern, we continue to identify ongoing specific concerns as well. Supervisors’ activity reports, for example, still generally do not capture information to provide the necessary evidence to find NOPD in compliance. And the supervisors’ activity sheets still generally do not include their expectations while interacting with the public, any complaints to which they responded, any monitoring of officer activity on calls for service or traffic stops, or other actions taken by a supervisor to ensure compliance with paragraph 312 of the Consent Decree.
The lack of information documented in supervisor reports in some districts prevents documentation of actions taken by supervisors including actions taken to address use of force incidents, review of officer daily activity reports, civilians’ complaints, ensuring officers work actively to engage the community and increase public trust, provide counseling, provide redirection and provide officer support.13
Notwithstanding the foregoing ongoing concerns, the Department has made progress in several areas that are worthy of praise, including the development of an effective Supervisory Burden Reduction Working Group and a new Comstat program, both described below.
(1) Burden Reduction Working Group
In October 2015, in cooperation with the Monitoring Team, the NOPD created a working group of patrol officers to identify areas of inefficiency and/or waste that were hindering the Department’s efforts to (a) put more officers on the streets and (b) reduce their response time when answering calls for service. The working group developed multiple constructive recommendations, many of which already have been implemented (or are in the process of implemented) by the Department. Encouraged by the success of the patrol officer working group, in June 2016, the Department created a second working group of lieutenants to focus on identifying areas of inefficiency and/or waste that were hindering the Department’s supervision efforts.
While the existence of a working group is not a direct requirement of the Consent Decree, ensuring a structure that permits supervisors to provide “close and effective” supervision as required by the Consent Decree (CD XV) is. As of the publication of this report, the Department’s supervisor working group has met twice and is in the process of compiling a list of

13

We would be remiss here if we did not recognize the significant improvement of NOPD’s Sixth District

with regard to documentation of its supervision activities. The Sixth District provided the Monitoring

Team a considerable amount of information regarding documentation in supervisors’ reports.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 68 of 93
Page 68 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
recommended actions items. The Monitoring Team has asked the Department to report on the progress of both working groups on a monthly basis.
(2) COMSTAT
Like many police agencies, the New Orleans Police Department holds weekly meetings among its leadership as a key management tool. These meetings, called Comstat (short for Computer Statistics) bring the Department’s leaders together to analysis crime data and other statistics in order to better manage the Department’s resources. Police Chief Magazine summarizes the purpose of Comstat as follows: “Collect, analyze, and map crime data and other essential police performance measures on a regular basis, and hold police managers accountable for their performance as measured by these data.” Police Chief Magazine 73:9 (Sept. 2006).
Paragraph 229 of the Consent Decree requires that NOPD “remake” its COMSTAT meeting. The Consent Decree requires NOPD to “use the underlying collection and reporting of accurate and meaningful data regarding crime trends and other public safety measures to drive discussion of community-policing successes and challenges.” Among other things, NOPD must “ensure the COMSTAT meeting includes discussion and analysis of trends in misconduct complaints and community priorities to identify areas of concern, and to better develop interventions to address them. NOPD agrees to use techniques such as spatial mapping and scientific deployment analysis to enable COMSTAT to better support and measure community and problem-solving policing efforts.”
While NOPD made no material changes to its Comstat program in the first two years of the Consent Decree, earlier this year, Superintendent Michael Harrison and Deputy Chief Paul Noel presented the Monitoring Team and the Court with a new approach they are calling MAX, for Management Analytics for eXcellence. Working in close consultation with the Department’s impressive new Director of Data Analytics, Ben Horwitz, the Department has developed a bold new approach to using data more effectively to guide the Department’s strategic decisionmaking.
NOPD describes its new program as a holistic, data-driven approach to police management. The Monitoring Team has observed the design, development, and beta testing of MAX, and agrees it shows great promise. The new system goes well-beyond the sharing of crime trends, and expands the information into other areas for which District Commanders have responsibility. MAX will include data permitting a deep dive into systematic issues of crime, management, community policing, and risk management. It also will offer NOPD management a more robust and meaningful view of data relating to personnel management, misconduct, use of force, vehicle risk management and Consent Decree Compliance.
NOPD designed MAX to provide data not only to the entire Department, but to the public as well. The NOPD has described MAX as reflecting its commitment to data transparency and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 69 of 93
Page 69 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
accountability. Assuming the resulting data are shared with the public as we expect them to be, we agree with the Department’s description.
The NOPD is beta-testing the MAX system now. The Department expects the system to be fully operational, and the information available to the public on-line, by November 1st of this year. We will continue monitoring the progress of the system’s development, testing, and implementation.
h. Paragraph 313
Consent Decree Paragraph 313 provides that NOPD “shall hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate.” NOPD was unable to provide documentation demonstrating its supervisors were held accountable for performing their duties. The performance evaluations we viewed were not adequate to assess supervisors’ performance. The evaluations did not include a section to evaluate “whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations” as required by paragraph 313 of the Consent Decree.
NOPD employs a performance evaluation form that includes a section for evaluating “close and effective supervision.” In several of the Districts, however, the information included in that section by managers is too vague to be useful. For example, one commander in one district had this to say about a particular lieutenant: “She is a great leader. She leads from the front and she is directly involved in and directly monitors her employees’ behavior.” While these comments obviously are positive, they are too vague to be useful to assess performance. And they are illustrative of other equally vague comments we have seen in other districts.
Similarly, in many cases, the counseling/appraising sections of the performance evaluation forms were not completed, presumably because they were labeled “optional” on the form.
It also is notable that NOPD’s performance evaluation forms do not explicitly measure Consent Decree compliance. Reasoning from the old adage that one can tell what is important to an organization by seeing what is measured, the Monitoring Team recommends the Department reexamine its performance evaluation forms to incorporate Consent Decree compliance as a meaningful measurement.
In short, the requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 313 are not yet fully addressed with the current performance evaluations. Accordingly, NOPD has not yet demonstrated full compliance with its obligations under this paragraph.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 70 of 93
Page 70 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Supervisor and Command-Level Training
a. Paragraph 314
Paragraph 314 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors.” While NOPD has developed and implemented mandatory supervisor training for all new and current supervisors, NOPD was not able to produce evidence that all supervisors appointed prior to August 9, 2013 received 200 hours of supervisory training by August 9, 2015. In contrast, NOPD was able to demonstrate compliance with its obligations regarding newly promoted supervisors. Specifically, Sergeants promoted since April 2014 did receive 160 hours of supervisory training. Finally, while NOPD maintains records regarding in-service training for sergeants, it was unable to produce documentation that lieutenants and commanders received similar in-service training. Consequently, NOPD is in partial compliance with its obligations under paragraph 314.
b. Paragraph 315
Paragraph 315 provides a number of topics on which supervisors must be trained. NOPD was NOT able to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph. NOPD was not able to show its supervisors were trained in many of the specific topics identified in the Consent Decree.
3. Early Warning System
An Early Warning System (“EWS”), also called an Early Intervention System, “is a data-based management tool designed to identify officers whose performance exhibits problems, and then to provide interventions, usually counseling or training, to correct those performance problems.” DOJ COPS Report (Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies) (2003). According to the Department of Justice, early warning systems “have emerged as an important mechanism for ensuring police accountability.” Id.
Paragraph 316 of the Consent Decree requires the City and NOPD “to develop, implement, and maintain an [early warning system] to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible.” The Consent Decree further requires NOPD “to regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts.” Id.
NOPD began working on its EWS system, called Insight, in 2012. Earlier this year, the Monitoring Team sought and received an updated briefing on the status of the EWS development effort. At that point, the development process was on Schedule, and a more recent briefing suggests it still is so. The release of the Insight testing system was timely initiated. The final release is scheduled for October 2016.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 71 of 93
Page 71 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The development of any EWS system is extremely complicated and time-consuming. Once online, though, a properly developed EWS serves as a critical management and supervision tool by aggregating a huge amount of data so managers can identify patterns and trends that otherwise may remain invisible. NOPD’s Insight system will aggregate data from a number of the Department’s current systems, including Electronic Police Reports (EPRs), Field Interview Cards (FIC), data from the Department existing discipline database (IAPro), CAD, payroll data (ADP), OPDA, training data (Power DMS), and more. These data will be used to identify risk areas, including officers in need of extra attention.
One particularly interesting and useful part of the system that is being developed is the creation of the NOPD Early Intervention Unit. The unit will be comprised of a director and three analysts. Their duties are to ensure all personnel receive the follow-up that is recommended by the supervisors and ordered by the commanding officers following the alerts and comparison of an officer’s performance compared to the performance of officers in that peer group. This is to ensure officers receive the training, counseling, anger management, discipline or other measures once it is recommended. This should provide good follow-through and ensure ordered training or counseling is always addressed. Once the system is operating and recommendations are made, the Monitoring Team will monitor the follow-up as part of monitoring supervision.
The Monitoring Team has made recommendations to the NOPD throughout the development process, including our recommendation to develop a “dashboard” so that the massive amount of data in the system actually will be usable by supervisors and managers. A user-friendly dashboard provides immediate access to information regarding all of the officers exceeding thresholds as compared to the performance of that officer’s peer group. Without a dashboard, the only method that seems to be incorporated to determine officer performance is the individual alerts.14
The Monitoring Team also recommended regular command staff meetings in order to discuss the findings of each commander in regard to the regular reviews of information contained in the EIS. This recommendation ensures all districts and divisions are completing the required reviews, documenting the reviews, and making adequate and similar recommendations to ensure impartiality in measures taken.
4. Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities
As noted throughout this Report, a core focus of the Consent Decree is on transparency and accountability. To promote both goals, as well as supervision generally, the NOPD has a number of audio and video tools at its disposal, including Body Warn Cameras (BWCs), in-car cameras, CEW (Taser ®) cameras, and in-car GPS devices. Several paragraphs compel NOPD to make sure these various tools are properly deployed, well maintained, and effectively used. While

14

The NOPD has advised the Monitoring Team it now has added a dashboard to the Insight system.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 72 of 93 Page 72 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
BWCs are not specifically identified in the Consent Decree, since the outset of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team has monitored compliance with NOPD’s BWC program as “similar equipment” per Consent Decree paragraph 328.
As noted in prior reports, NOPD
deserves significant credit for embracing BWCs and rolling them out to patrol officers even though the requirement is not included in the Consent Decree. As of August 2015, all regular patrol officers in all districts have been issued BWCs. This is a significant – and costly – accomplishment.
See October 2015 Report. Our ongoing audits continue to ensure the full deployment of BWCs, while also continually focusing on the regular and proper use of BWCs by officers.
The following subparagraphs review NOPD’s compliance with the various Consent Decree paragraphs regarding its video and audio equipment.
a. Paragraph 327
Paragraph 327 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD “maintain and operate video cameras and AVL in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and shall repair or replace all nonfunctioning video cameras or AVL units, as necessary for reliable functioning.” Paragraph 327 further provides “One-half of these vehicles will be equipped with video cameras and AVL within one year of the Effective Date.” Finally, NOPD is required to “ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities.” NOPD demonstrated partial compliance with these requirements.
At this point, NOPD should have all cars engaged in patrol activities equipped with working AVLs. Due to a number of technological hurdles, however, NOPD is not yet in full compliance with this requirement. Neither is NOPD yet in compliance with its obligations to have 100% of its patrol vehicles equipped with functioning in-car cameras.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 73 of 93
Page 73 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Working In-Car Cameras (Q2 2016)

45

40

35

30

25

20 15

16 14

10

5

0 D1

23 16
D2

18 18 D3

30 24
D6

40 20
D8

17 17 SOD

No. of Vehicles No. of Working Camera

It is important to note, much of these negative scores were due to technology breakdowns, and not non-compliance by an individual officer or supervisor. Nonetheless, NOPD as an institution is held accountable for the functionality of its technology.
It also should be noted that, even where cameras were in working order, we identified frequent failures to record the associated audio. Per NOPD policy, officers are required to affix a small microphone to their uniforms before leaving their cars. Many officers don’t do this. Since being alerted to this by the Monitoring Team, NOPD has taken steps to reinforce the requirement to use the in-car microphone as well as the BWC.
Of note with respect to the Third District is the absence of in-car cameras for the cars that patrol the Lakeview Crime Prevention District. As these cars are apt to be called into service when necessary, they should be equipped with cameras.
b. Paragraph 328
Paragraph 328 requires NOPD to develop and implement policies and procedures regarding AVL, in-car cameras, ECWs, and similar equipment, among other things. NOPD is generally in compliance with the policy/procedure elements of this requirement. NOPD has developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding BWCs, AVLs, CEWs, and in-car cameras.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 74 of 93
Page 74 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD also does retain and preserve recordings for at least two years, or, if a case remains under investigation or litigation longer than two years, at least three years after the final disposition of the matter, including appeals.
One area where NOPD’s compliance continues to lag relates to supervisors incorporating the knowledge gained from the review of BWC recordings into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers. There is no supporting documentation to provide evidence of compliance with this provision. Thus, NOPD is not yet in full compliance with this requirement.
Finally, on a related note, but admittedly outside the scope of paragraph 328, NOPD still does not take adequate advantage of its BWC and in-car recordings as a learning tool. As one would imagine, NOPD now has a large collection of camera recordings. Some of these recording show admirable practices, while some show inadequate and/or unsafe practices. Both categories provide important material for training. The Monitoring Team previously has requested NOPD develop a system to identify important videos and incorporate them into Academy, in-service, and/or roll call training. NOPD has not yet taken effective steps to do this.
c. Paragraph 329
Paragraph 329 requires NOPD to “develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.” Paragraph 329 further provides that “officers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment.”
Our audits in early 2016 revealed continued noncompliance with this requirement. Most district personnel were unaware of any AVL, in-car cameras, or ECW testing. And NOPD provided no documentation of such testing. More recently, however, the NOPD Compliance Bureau rolled out a program in the various districts to test all equipment at the outset of each shift. While some districts already had been doing this, now we are seeing this being done on a more consistent basis among all districts. This new practice no doubt will help the Department achieve compliance with this Consent Decree obligation.
d. Paragraph 330
Paragraph 330 requires officers to use their recording equipment as directed by policy and requires supervisors to ensure officers under their command do so. The paragraph further requires supervisors to “report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed,” and “refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment. Prior Monitoring Team audits revealed significant non-compliance in this area. Our more recent audits, however, revealed significant improvement. NOPD now is able to demonstrate partial compliance with these requirements, and is on track toward demonstrating full compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 75 of 93 Page 75 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
e. Paragraph 331 Paragraph 365 requires NOPD to “provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations.” As of our last audit, Districts 1, 3, and 8 were in full compliance with this requirement. District 2 was in partial compliance. The other districts will be audited next period.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 76 of 93
Page 76 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XIX. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION
The Consent Decree provides that NOPD must “ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent.” Within the NOPD, the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) is primarily responsible for these functions. The PIB receives complaints from civilians and NOPD personnel, investigates those complaints, and recommends a disposition to NOPD leadership. The Monitoring Team consistently has reviewed various elements of PIB compliance since the implementation of the Consent Decree.
This period the Monitoring Team conducted an audit of PIB’s administrative investigations. This audit supplements similar audits conducted in June 2015 and November 2015. Among other things, the Monitoring Team reviewed 32 randomly selected PIB administrative investigations to determine whether the PIB documentation accurately captured the content of the recorded intake interviews and whether the investigations were handled thoroughly.15 We selected the cases to review from the 112 citizen initiated complaints initiated between November 2015 and January 2016. We selected this period in an effort to review cases that already had been investigated. PIB was unaware of the months or cases we planned to audit prior to the morning of the audit.
Our review revealed that PIB had responded effectively to our findings and recommendations of our prior audit. Specifically, we found that PIB investigative case files were better organized and PIB’s final reports were more detailed and maintained in a more organized manner than the reports reviewed during June 2015 and November 2015. In short, we noticed significant improvement on the part of PIB.
The improvements we noted were due in large part to the creation of new protocols, practices, and forms by PIB Commander Nolan, the NOPD Compliance Unit, and PIB Deputy Chief Arlinda Westbrook. Subsequent to our initial review, PIB implemented a new Universal Complaint Form (used in the field to document citizen complaints), a new Final Report format with meaningful sub-headings, a Three-day Misconduct Complaint Determination form, a date tracking log. The PIB also made important alterations to existing forms that further enhanced available evidence of compliance with many consent decree paragraphs.

15

Of the thirty-two cases reviewed, one (1) was closed as withdrawn (not one of the four consent decree

authorized findings), four (4) were forwarded to mediation, seven (7) were closed as No Formal

Investigation Merited, one (1) was merged with another complaint, and one (1) was an employee complaint.

This left eighteen (18) of the original thirty-two (32) cases that could be fully evaluated for administrative

investigation compliance.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 77 of 93
Page 77 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
As a result of these improvements:
 Final reports are better organized and include important sections that were lacking in prior reports such as credibility assessments and recommendations for changes in training, policy, and tactics.
 The individual case files are better organized in order to locate evidence of policy and consent decree compliance with matters including the timelines related to notifications to the complainant, return of completed investigations to PIB when they are investigated in the field, and the completion of the case.
 PIB initiated a date tracking log on the front cover of each case file in order to track the case progress and the timelines required at various stages of the investigation. This has improved the Bureau’s ability to monitor and demonstrate compliance with requirements that cases be assigned within 3 days and that a determination be made within 3 days whether the case will be handled as a criminal investigation or an administrative investigation.
Another positive development for PIB during this reporting period is the completion of Policy 52.1.1, approved by OCDM and DOJ in March 2015, and issued by PIB in July 2015. This policy addresses internal affairs investigations, including how to perform credibility assessments and how to provide recommendations regarding training and policy needs, and tactical matters that should be addressed. As of the publication of this report, few officers had received training on this policy, which obviously must be remedied. We expect, however, that once supervisors receive training in the proper method of conducting administrative investigations that compliance with many consent decree paragraphs, we will see further improvement within PIB.
One area that would benefit from further improvement is the Bureau’s use of “IA Pro,” the Bureau’s core complaint and investigation tracking database. PIB establishes an IA Pro record for each allegation of misconduct that contains the (1) number, (2) the nature, (3) the status of misconduct complaints from initial intake to final disposition, (4) the investigation timeliness, (5) the notification to the complainant of the interim status, and (6) the final disposition of the investigation. Unfortunately, the Department is not taking advantage of the full capacity of the system to keep all of the data required of paragraph 396 of the Consent Decree. It includes only partial information or limited information regarding the following.
 Status – The IAPro record includes only the day the complaint was received, if it is pending, and if it is closed rather than the multiple steps of its status such as being assigned to district personnel, case file return from the district to PIB, awaiting approval of various reviewers, and other stages of processing.
 Investigation timeliness – The IAPro system is currently set up to track only when the complaint was received and when it was closed. It does not track or alert PIB personnel
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 78 of 93 Page 78 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
when investigative or review timelines are exceeded. This has resulted in several PIB cases exceeding the time limit for completion of the investigation and/or the review of the investigation.  Notification to the complainant – The IAPro system tracks the date the final letter was sent to the complainant. It is not set up to track whether the complainant was kept informed periodically regarding he status of the investigation. Many of the cases reviewed indicated the complainant received an initial notification of the investigation and the final letter when the case was closed. Although PIB requires a notification to the complainant after 45 days of investigation, many cases did not have documentation the notification was provided to the complainant. The Monitoring Team has discussed these issues with PIB and is working with the Bureau to make better use of its current systems. In addition to the tracking that IA Pro provides, NOPD’s PIB separately tracks first amendment rights violations. NOPD reported to us that it received no first amendment complaints from November 2015 through January 2016, and our review turned up no such complaints within our sample. PIB also separately tracks misconduct complaints alleging discriminatory policing violations. PIB’s records reflected 390 complaints (282 citizen complaints; 108 rank initiated complaints) from January 2016 to May 2016. This is higher than those registered during the same period in 2015, when PIB received 320 complaints, which likely illustrates greater faith/trust in NOPD’s internal affairs process . PIB’s handling of the 2016 complaints breaks down as follows:
PIB Complaints
NFIM NS Mediation PIB Investigations
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 79 of 93
Page 79 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The top three types of complaints PIB handles are (1) neglect of duty, (2) professionalism, and(3) adherence to instructions. During the period we reviewed, 53 cases contained sustained charges. Of those, 34 were rank initiated investigations and 19 were citizen initiated charges.

As noted above, our audit found significant improvement on the part of PIB from the last time we conducted our audit. The specific compliance rates for the various relevant CD paragraphs are as follows:

Paragraph 375 376 389 390 391 392 393
394 395 396

Compliance 93% 100% 100% 100% 90% N/A Compliant
Compliant 95% Partially Compliant

Notes
Misconduct was reported to supervisors in the cases we reviewed, but PIB was not notified immediately in two cases.
The Consent Decree requires supervisors to take appropriate disciplinary action. We found appropriate disciplinary action taken in each case we reviewed.
All complaints must be accepted for investigation. We found no evidence of PIB rejecting a complaint, discouraging a complaint, otherwise not investigating a complaint.
All misconduct complaints were accepted by PIB. All but one complaint was made in English. One case required translation service, which was provided as required by the Consent Decree.
Paragraph 391 requires all citizen complaints filed in the field be reported to PIB by the end of the shift. Our audit identified three instances of delayed reporting.
PIB did not identify any cases originating from a complaint from the City Attorney’s Office, the DA, a judge, or a magistrate.
As required by the Consent Decree, cases are tracked separately for allegations that officers’ violated a citizen’s first amendment rights. There was no evidence in the 32 cases reviewed that officers detained or arrested an individual for interfering with a law enforcement investigation, disorderly conduct, or similar charges for a civilian exercising first amendment rights to observe, record, and/or verbally comment on the performance of police duties.
Cases are tracked separately for allegations of discriminatory policing.
An identifying number was provided to the complainant by the field supervisor accepting the complaint for all but two cases.
NOPD’s centralized numbering and tracking system contains all information except information indicating investigation status, investigation timeliness, and whether the complainant was notified.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 80 of 93
Page 80 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Paragraph Compliance

Notes

397

96%

Supervisors in the field gathered all required evidence in all cases except one.

398

93%

The cases were assigned in three days in all cases except two.

399

Compliant NOPD has embraced an “allegation-driven” complaint classification

process. An allegation-driven system is one where the assignment

of complaint action to a particular investigative unit is based on the

complainant’s allegation rather than on the possible outcome of the

investigation.

400

100%

All cases closed as unfounded or exonerated were free of

misconduct.

401

93%

Investigations were conducted by non-involved supervisor in all but two cases.

403

75%

Eight investigations were not conducted within the applicable 90 or 120 day timeline.

404

87%

We identified four investigations the Monitoring Team believed were not sufficiently thorough. The gaps were not dramatic, but did require additional effort on the part of NOPD. These cases were brought to the attention of PIB for follow-up work by the Bureau’s investigators.

405

93%

Written statements or recorded statements were provided for all cases except two.

406

100%

Interviews were conducted and recorded in all cases except those

that properly warranted an NFIM (no formal investigation merited)

disposition.

407

96%

All complainants spoke English except one who was given a translator. One case, however, did not have a separate interview.

408

93%

Investigator conducted further investigations in all reviewed cases except two.

409

Compliant All recordings were available.

410

Compliant All officers cooperated with all investigations.

411

N/A

There were no criminal investigations reviewed as part of the audit.

412

N/A

The Monitoring Team did not assess NOPD’s compliance with paragraph 412 because the applicable policy has not yet been issued by the Department.

413

52%

Discussed below.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 81 of 93
Page 81 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Paragraph 414
415 416
417 418 419
420

Compliance 96%
87% 96%
90% 96% 100%
96%

Notes
Paragraph 414 provides that case must not be withdrawn, but should be investigated thoroughly. One case was withdrawn among the sample reviewed by the Monitoring Team.
Discussed below.
The PIB commander accepted and approved the investigator’s recommended disposition unless the disposition was unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence or additional investigation was necessary to reach a reliable finding in all cases except one.
Investigators made recommendations for training, policy, etc. in all cases except three.
District level investigations were provided to PIB within three business days except in one instance.
Investigator reports and related documentation and evidence is securely maintained in a central and accessible location. The reports were all available to the Monitoring Team.
Complainants were updated on the status of the investigation and the complainant was notified of the outcome within10 days except in one case.

These findings reflect significant improvement from our prior PIB audit, as shown in the graph below:

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 82 of 93
Page 82 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

CD Paragraph Numbers

Comparison of 2015 vs. 2016 Audit Results

420 419 418 417 416 415 413 410 409 408 406 405 404 403 401 400 398 397 394 393 391 390 389 376
-

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 2016 2015

Notwithstanding this significant improvement, PIB still has room for additional improvement in some areas. Two particular area where PIB still needs to pay particular attention are Consent Decree paragraph 413 and paragraph 415. Paragraph 413 requires NOPD to “consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations based upon that evidence.” PIB’s compliance with this paragraph remains inconsistent. While all relevant evidence was considered in all but three cases, we noted lingering shortcomings with respect to the Bureau’s credibility determinations. Of the 32 cases we reviewed, credibility determinations should have been made in 19 cases.
Of those 19, credibility determinations were insufficient in 9 of the 19. In 4 of these 9, credibility determinations were mentioned, but the report provided insufficient information to determine how the investigator made his/her determination. In 5 of the 9 cases, the report reflected no evidence that a credibility determination was conducted at all. While it is possible

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 83 of 93
Page 83 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
credibility determinations were made in all 19 cases where one should have been made, if the record does not reflect it, the Monitoring Team considers it as not having occurred. Per paragraph 486 of the Consent Decree, it is the Department’s burden of demonstrating its compliance with the Consent Decree.
PIB likewise needs additional focus on paragraph 415. Paragraph 415 requires that NOPD’s misconduct investigators must “explicitly identify and recommend one of” four identified dispositions “for each allegation of misconduct in an administrative investigation.” The four dispositions are “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” and “exonerated.” The Monitoring Team identified four cases that were not closed used these four dispositions. We recognize, however, that our findings in this area may be different once PIB’s investigators are better trained in making credibility assessments.
In all cases where we identified less than 100% compliance, we referred the offending investigation to PIB for corrective action. We also consistently provide recommendations to PIB (and all other NOPD departments) where we identify opportunities for improvement. Following our most recent PIB review, we made the following recommendations:
 All department supervisors should receive comprehensive training on all relevant policies, including newly approved Policy 52.1.1 titled “Misconduct Complaint Intake and Investigation.” Specifically, patrol supervisors would benefit from additional training on:
o How civilians’ complaints are to be received, documented and logged;
o Conducting and documenting credibility assessments;
o The preponderance of evidence standard;
o Identifying and reporting training, policy, and tactical deficiencies uncovered during the investigation; and
o What constitutes the acceptable investigative outcomes: sustained, not sustained, unfounded and exonerated.
 PIB should identify ways to improve the timeliness of its field investigations.
 PIB should implement a more effective case tracking system for cases returned to PIB from the patrol division to help reduce delays in completed cases awaiting final approval.
 NOPD should review current policy and practices for responding to an officer’s complaint against a supervisor to determine whether it would be more effective to handle such complaints in the same way a citizen complaint is handled and investigated.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 84 of 93 Page 84 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
 PIB should evaluate whether it has adequate personnel to accomplish its various obligations in a timely fashion.
 PIB should update its internal tracking program (IAPro) to take full advantage of its capabilities and incorporate all requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 396.
To date, we have been impressed with PIB responsiveness to the recommendations of the Monitoring Team. The cooperation we have received from PIB since the implementation of the Consent Decree has been excellent. We have no doubt PIB will see continued compliance improvement over the coming months.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 85 of 93 Page 85 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XX. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT The Consent Decree has a lot to say about transparency. Among other things, the Consent Decree requires NOPD to make available to the public all audits and reports related to Consent Decree implementation (CD 427), all policies, procedures, and manual including, but not limited to, those required by the Consent Decree (CD 428), and “all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensure transparency and wide public access to information related to NOPD decision making and activities, as permitted by law.” (CD 429) Over the past year, NOPD has taken significant steps toward meeting these obligations. Its actions in this area are testament to its sincere ongoing efforts to “facilitate effective and constitutional policing and increase trust between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community,” as contemplated by the Consent Decree. Indeed, in taking its most recent steps in this area, Superintendent Harrison observed “The most important thing is our willingness to be transparent. . . . I can’t imagine building trust to this degree and then taking it away.” Times Picayune (8/10/16) Superintendent Harrison went on to commit to continuing to provide this level of open access “as long as he’s chief . . . even after the Consent Decree is resolved.” Id. Following is a summary of NOPD’s achievements with respect to promoting transparency. First, since the initiation of the Consent Decree, NOPD has posted its compliance reports and the Monitoring Team’s compliance reports on its web site. These reports are available at www.nola.gov/nopd, and include the City’s Biennial Self-Assessment, the Monitoring Team’s Quarterly Reports, as well as a number of other reports as indicated in the chart below.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 86 of 93
Page 86 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

2014
•Training annual report •Domestic Violence annual report •Sexual Assault annual report •Use of Force annual report •Bias Free Policing annual report •Recruitment annual report •Community Engagement annual report •Public Integrity Bureau annual report •Crisis Intervention Team annual report •Stop and Search annual report

2015
•Training annual report •Training class roster •Domestic Violence annual report •Sexual Assault annual report •Sexual Assault mid-year report •Use of Force annual report •Bias Free Policing annual report •Community Engagement annual report •Public Integrity Bureau annual report •Crisis Intervention Team annual report •Stop and Search annual report

Additionally, so far this year, NOPD has published its first quarter Community Engagement First Quarter Report, its mid-year Sexual Assault report, and its biennial compliance report.

While the Monitoring Team previously took issue with the accuracy and completeness of some of the initial self-assessments published by the NOPD, we have found the City’s subsequent reports generally fair and accurate.

Second, NOPD has made its policies and procedures available on its public website as required by the Consent Decree. The website currently provides citizen access to the following policies that have been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team:

Chapter 1.2.4 Search and Seizure Chapter 1.3 Use of Force.pdf
Chapter 1.3.1.2 Control-Devices-andTechniques.pdf Chapter 1.3.6 Reporting Use of Force.pdf Chapter 1.4 Authorized Firearms.pdf Chapter 1.4.2 Firearms Training Qualification and Requalification

Chapter 1.2.4.1 Stops/Terry Stops Chapter 1.3.1.1 Handcuffing and Restraint Devices.pdf Chapter 1.3.2 Force Investigation Team.pdf
Chapter 1.3.7 Use of Force Review Board.pdf Chapter 1.4.1 Authorized Ammunition.pdf Chapter 1.7.1 Conducted Electrical Weapon(CEW).pdf

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 87 of 93
Page 87 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Chapter 1.9 Arrests Chapter 26.2.1 Disciplinary Matrix/Penalty Schedule Chapter 35.1.7 Non-Disciplinary Employee Counseling For Minor Violations.pdf Chapter 41.3.8 In Car Camera.pdf Chapter 41.4 Foot Pursuits.pdf Chapter 41.6.1 Immigration Status.pdf Chapter 41.22 Canine.pdf Chapter 41.26 Crisis Transportation Service.pdf Chapter 42.4 Domestic Violence.pdf
Chapter 52.1.2 Misconduct Complaint Investigator Responsibilities Chapter 61.4.5 Abandoned Boats.pdf

Chapter 1.9.1 Miranda Rights Chapter 26.2 Adjudication of Misconduct
Chapter 41.3.2 Body Worn Camera (BWC) Inadvertent Misuse and Non-use Chapter 41.3.10 Body Worn Camera.pdf Chapter 41.5 Vehicle Pursuits.pdf Chapter 41.13 Bias-Free Policing Chapter 41.25 Crisis Intervention.pdf Chapter 42.2 Sexual Assault.pdf
Chapter 52.1.1 Misconduct Complaint Intake and Investigation.pdf Chapter 52.2 Negotiated Settlement Agreements.pdf Chapter 71.1 Prisoner Transportation and Guarding.pdf

Additional policies are posted as they are approved by the Department of Justice and the Monitoring Team.
Third, to its great credit, the City recently made available through its web site a sizeable new collection of policing data. According to NOPD, these new “policing data reports offer insight into investigations and policies regarding calls for service, field interviews, use of force, sexual assault, domestic violence, community engagement, crisis intervention and more.” We agree. The data publically available now includes the following:
 Current calls for Service Data, which reflect the “events captured in NOPD’s ComputerAided Dispatch (CAD) system used to facilitate incident response.” This data collection included raw data in a user-friendly dashboard that permits civilians, the media, researchers, etc. to perform their own analysis on these data. The collection is derived from data provided by the Orleans Parish Communication District (OPCD), the administrative office of 9-1-1 for the City of New Orleans. According to the NOPD, “in order to protect the privacy of victims, addresses are shown at the block level and the call types cruelty to juveniles, juvenile attachment and missing juvenile have been removed in accordance with the Louisiana Public Records Act, L.R.S. 44:1.”
 Current Stop and Search (Field Interview Card) data, which “summarize the stop and search data collected for the past year, analyze that data, and articulate the steps taken to correct any problems identified or to build on success.” As with the Calls for Service

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 88 of 93
Page 88 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

data, these data include raw data in a user-friendly dashboard that permits civilians, the media, researchers, etc. to perform their own analysis on these data.
 BWC and In-Car Camera metadata, which reflect the existence of camera recording (but not the recordings themselves).
As noted above, NOPD’s willingness to share these (and other16) data with the public reflects not only a commitment to meet its obligations under the Consent Decree, but a commitment to promoting transparency to achieve the core goals of the Consent Decree. NOPD could have adopted a more limited data release policy and still met its obligations under the Consent Decree. The Department deserves significant credit for going beyond its obligations and providing the public with more meaningful data.
Finally, a word should be said here about a recent report published by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,17 which gave the New Orleans Police Department a mediocre grade for transparency. Among other things, the Leadership Conference criticized the Department’s policy allowing officers to review camera footage before writing reports, its policy of not deleting recordings, its policy of not allowing civilians filing complaints to access video recordings, and not limiting the use of biometric technologies to identify individuals in recordings. See www.bwcscorecard.org.
The Monitoring Team takes no position on these criticisms as NOPD’s policy is in compliance with the Consent Decree. Moreover, it is important to note the correctness of the Leadership Conference’s positions is not without challenge. In fact, the issues upon which the group criticized the NOPD are fiercely debated topics with reasonable arguments offered on both sides of the debate. Legislatures throughout the country (including the Louisiana legislature) are struggling with these issues, and, as far as the Monitoring Team knows, none yet have found an answer acceptable to all stakeholders.
Notwithstanding these ongoing debates, the Monitoring Team believes the New Orleans Police Department deserves significant credit for taking it upon itself to stake out a position with respect to transparency and BWC recordings. The Monitoring Team described NOPD’s accomplishment this way in our last report:
As police departments across the country roll out BWC programs, they have found themselves struggling with a host of collateral issues, including, among

16

More recently, NOPD added Use of Force data to its on-line offering as well.

17

According to its web site, the Leadership Conference is “a coalition charged by its diverse membership of

more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the

United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, the Leadership Conference works

toward the goal of a more open and just society – an America as good as its ideals.” See

www.civilrights.org.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 89 of 93
Page 89 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
many other things, whether, when, and how to release video recordings to the public. The national news has shown us all the power of video footage in the context of justified and unjustified police shootings. To ensure New Orleans dealt with this issue in a fair, consistent, and compliant manner, in November, U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan recommended the NOPD develop a written policy governing the release of NOPD video recordings of critical incidents (e.g., officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths, etc.). Consistent with the Consent Decree’s demand that the police department promote transparency, and recognizing that transparency facilitates increased trust between the NOPD and the New Orleans community, Judge Morgan sought a policy that would facilitate the prompt release of video recordings of critical incidents involving the NOPD so long as the release is consistent with the legitimate needs of ongoing law enforcement operations.
In December, the City, the NOPD, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Department of Justice worked together to develop a policy consistent with Judge Morgan’s recommendation. The Monitoring Team has reviewed the policy and believes it represents a well thought-out approach toward promoting transparency while protecting privacy rights as well as the legitimate interests of law enforcement. . . .
We continue to view’s NOPD’s commitment to transparency as worthy of praise
A. Technical Assistance
Paragraph 455 of the Consent Decree authorizes the Monitoring Team to provide “technical assistance” to the NOPD “to ensure timely, full, and effective implementation of this Agreement and its underlying objectives.” During this reporting period, as in prior reporting periods, the Monitoring Team provided Technical Assistance to the Department in many areas including Use of Force, bias-free policing, sexual assault investigations, training, policy drafting, and other areas.
In addition to the areas in which the Monitoring Team provides ongoing Technical Assistance, this period we also observed the work of the City’s 911 call takers and police dispatchers in order to provide recommendations as to how that important function can foster the implementation of the Consent Decree.
In March 2016, with the cooperation of the Orleans Parish Communications Center, the Monitoring Team observed the work of several call-takers and dispatchers. Our observations involved meeting with Center management, interviewing Center employees, and monitoring their calls. Overall, we were impressed by the competence and professionalism of the Communications Center personnel with whom we dealt. They understood their jobs well and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 90 of 93 Page 90 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
performed their tasks conscientiously. With their cooperation, we came away with several recommendations, which we shared with the Department. Among them were the following:
 Provide additional training to call-takers. Neither call-takers nor dispatchers receive periodic or even annual training. While they received training when they are brought on board and supervisors are available to provide one-on-one training when necessary, we believe Center personnel would be more effective by receiving, and NOPD would benefit from, additional regular training much like NOPD itself offers regular in-service training for its officers.
 Provide suggested scripts or at least guidelines for common calls to better ensure consistency among Center personnel.
 Implement Call Center routines that make maximum use of the Center’s Computer Aided Dispatch System.
 Prepare an updated procedure manual.
 Provide more thorough training with respect to the use of the APR function.
 Develop a process for dealing with tow truck service.
Subsequent to our meetings with Communications Center personnel, the Monitoring Team returned to Communications Center in July and will continue monitoring progress toward implementing these recommendations.18

18

The Orleans Parish Communications District recently brought on a new Director of Operations, Ms. Shinar

Haynes (MBA RPL). Ms. Haynes is an impressive addition to the Communications team, and the

Monitoring Team looks forward to continuing to work with her.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 91 of 93
Page 91 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XXI. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team continues to be impressed by the passion, dedication, and impact of the IPM; and recognizes the respect the organization has within the New Orleans community. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it receives from the IPM.
B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.”
As noted in the Monitoring Team’s prior reports, “a fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.” NOPD has been in compliance with its obligations under paragraph 467 since 2014 when it fully staffed the Consent Decree Implementation Unit. The Monitoring Team continues to be pleased by the Unit’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process; and recognizes the full cooperation it continues to receive from the Unit.
Unfortunately, the leader of the NOPD Compliance Bureau, Deputy Chief Tim Averill, just retired. Chief Averill was a passionate champion of reform, a committed employee of the NOPD, and a friend to the Monitoring Team. Under his watch, the Compliance Bureau continued to play a significant role in moving the NOPD toward full compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree. We will miss Chief Averill, and wish him luck in whatever is next on his professional agenda.
Chief Averill’s successor, Deputy Chief Danny Murphy, recently was promoted from Compliance Manager within the Compliance Bureau. The Monitoring Team has worked with now-Deputy Chief Murphy for several years, and holds him in very high regard. We look forward to working with Chief Murphy as he builds upon the progress made by Chief Averill.
C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD continued to cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting period. The level of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 92 of 93 Page 92 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
cooperation we received from the Superintendent and his leadership team is worthy of particular note here. Superintendent Harrison, Chief Noel, Chief Thomas, Chief Westbrook, Chief Averill, Commander Eckert, and many others all continue to play a critical role in implementing the reforms of the Consent Decree and in ensuring their respective teams work closely with the Monitoring Team. The Department would not have made the progress it has made so far without their leadership. The Monitoring Team also continues to receive the full cooperation of and continues to work closely with the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). While the OIG’s activities do not fall within our monitoring responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the OIG has kept us apprised of its audit plans and investigators as they relate to the NOPD. We continue to be impressed by the quality of the OIG personnel with whom we work and with the quality and thoroughness of the OIG’s work product. The Monitoring Team looks forward to an ongoing positive relationship with the OIG. Finally, the Monitoring Team also has been impressed with the close working relationship between NOPD’s current domestic violence detectives and the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, and the level of cooperation we continue to receive from the DA’s Office.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 493-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 93 of 93 Page 93 of 93 September 26, 2016 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XXII. CONCLUSION As noted at the outset of this Report, the New Orleans Police Department has made great
progress over the past two years in meeting its obligations under the Consent Decree. This progress has been driven in large part by a leadership team committed to reform, transparency, and cooperation. Over the course of this reporting period, and as reflected throughout this Report, the Monitoring Team has seen improvements in many Consent Decree areas. The burden is on NOPD, however, to institutionalize and sustain these improvements. Sadly, the history of police reform in the United States is filled with stories of backsliding. Neither the Monitoring Team nor the Court will allow that to happen here.
In addition to institutionalizing and sustaining the achievements already made, the Department also needs to continue focusing its attention on the areas that need further improvement, including the Academy, Supervision, and Community Oriented Policing.
Finally, and of critical importance, the Department needs to ensure its institutional improvements are having the intended outcomes – that is to say, to ensure the improvements are finding their way to the officers on the street, and into the cars, yards, and homes of every citizen of and visitor to New Orleans. The great progress NOPD has made improving its policies, institutions, and processes, now gives the Monitoring Team more opportunity to focus its efforts on assessing precisely that.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD,” the “Department”) to implement the Consent Decree; to outline the City’s assessment of its progress; plans to correct any issues; and responses to any concerns that have been raised by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (“OCDM,” the “Monitor”).

Introduction This report is the City’s fourth biannual Status Report, covering the period from July 1,
2015, to December 31, 2015. The Department continues to strive toward complete compliance with the Consent Decree at a time when its personnel levels remain critically low. NOPD’s staffing has dropped from about 1,525 officers in 2010 to about 1,150 presently, a decrease of 24 percent in five years. At the same time, NOPD operates under a Consent Decree that is “broader in scope and more detailed than any other consent decree” issued by the Department of Justice.1 Attempting to implement the Consent Decree’s extensive reforms, while at the same time

1 “Civil Rights Investigations of Local Police: Lessons Learned,” Police Executive Research Forum, July 2013.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 23
attempting to address a severe staffing shortage, is a challenge with which any organization would struggle. Nevertheless, the Department recently achieved a string of significant successes and continues to make steady progress.
It is important to put the Department’s progress toward compliance in the proper context. This month marks the close of the third year that the Department has been under the Consent Decree, which was approved in January 2013. However, the NOPD’s efforts at achieving the reforms mandated by the Consent Decree did not become fully operational until more than a year later. This lag occurred in part because the Department lacked organizational infrastructure such as the Compliance Bureau, which was formed in December 2013 and became fully staffed by July 2014. Since that time, the pace of Consent Decree compliance has accelerated steadily.
During the past six months, the Department has developed and rolled out a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program, trained two classes of CIT officers, and held its first graduation on September 17. The 49 officers who completed the CIT program have been trained specifically to handle emergencies involving individuals in crisis that may be related to mental illness or substance abuse. The CIT program will improve the NOPD’s response to incidents involving those individuals. The NOPD also has established its Officer Assistance and Support program, which will provide counseling and other resources to officers and their families for jobrelated stresses.
The Department recently completed the staffing of its Audit and Review Unit in the Compliance Bureau, hiring a complement of four auditors who will perform random inspections and directed audits to identify deficiencies and improve compliance with the Consent Decree throughout the Department. In September, NOPD obtained more than $3 million in federal grants, including approximately $1.875 million over three years through the COPS Hiring
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 23
Program, $1 million from the Department of Justice, and $237,000 through the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Pilot Implementation Program, which will be used to hire more officers, improve the process of testing sexual assault kits, and purchase more BWCs.
NOPD’s recruitment continues to grow, and police recruit applications nearly doubled this year; the Department is reviewing applications more quickly as it improves and streamlines its hiring process. On September 2, the 29 recruits of Class 172 graduated, and the 33 recruits of Class 173 started their training in June at the UNO Lindy C. Boggs International Conference Center. Class 174’s 32 recruits began training in October.
The previous six months also produced critical reminders of the perils that police face in everyday law enforcement. Officer Vernell Brown Jr. died July 17 after a vehicle struck him on U.S. 90 while he walked beside a guardrail to investigate an accident. The fatal crash came less than a month after Officer Daryle Holloway was fatally shot by a suspect he had been transporting to prison. More recently, a gunman targeted Commander Derek Frick on October 25, shooting him while he was driving, off-duty, in an unmarked police vehicle. These three incidents demonstrate the dangers that officers encounter as they protect the public’s safety. As it strives toward full compliance with the Consent Decree, the NOPD remains committed to that mission, embracing reforms that ensure the safety of its officers and the public as well as creating an efficient, transparent, and responsive Department. Audit and Review Unit
The NOPD has staffed an internal performance Audit and Review Unit responsible for conducting law enforcement performance audits to assess compliance with the Consent Decree and to make recommendations that address noncompliant practices. The Audit and Review Unit will be essential not only in demonstrating compliance, but also in providing the Department
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 23
with information necessary to the execution of Consent Decree reforms. The unit consists of civilians with expertise in data analysis, scientific methods, and law enforcement.
In late September, the Department brought in law enforcement performance auditors from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The LAPD created the first internal police performance audit unit in response to that city’s Consent Decree, and it is now seen as a leader in internal law enforcement performance auditing, particularly with a focus on Consent Decree compliance. The LAPD sent its auditors to New Orleans to train NOPD’s auditors, as well as other members of the Department and other law enforcement agencies, such as the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office. The four-day training offered by the LAPD provided comprehensive instruction on how to conduct a law enforcement performance audit, including the creation of audit objectives and an audit work plan, tools and techniques to collect accurate and complete data, and ultimately the final audit report with recommendations as necessary.
Following the training, the Department completed its build-out of the Audit and Review Unit, including the creation of office space, development of an audit unit policy and internal guidelines, standardization of processes and procedures for executing audits, and the completion of practice audits. In early 2016, the Department plans to initiate formal audits. In addition to audits, the unit also provides smaller data assessments to provide the Department with management tools such as its body worn camera reviews, as will be discussed below. Policies
NOPD’s policy drafting and revision process continues to improve. Once NOPD submits draft policies for review by the Consent Decree Monitor (OCDM) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department then waits for feedback and response before those policies can be
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 5 of 23
implemented. This stage alone typically takes a number of months. Once feedback is provided, each individual policy may go through multiple rounds of revisions, depending on the comments and suggestions provided by OCDM and DOJ. The Department continues to work with OCDM and DOJ to improve the efficiency of this process, but some delays are necessary to ensure the quality of NOPD’s policies and procedures.
A group of 14 interrelated regulations classified under the Use of Force Section of the Consent Decree were implemented in December following approval by OCDM and DOJ. The rollout of these policies included briefings conducted for the Department’s command staff, PowerPoint presentations developed and made available on the Department’s shared site for use by supervisors and trainers, and Daily Training Bulletins (DTB) conducted on the major changes.
Along with the revision and approval of regulations under the Consent Decree, related Department forms and Standard Operating Guidelines also have been submitted, reviewed and approved to ensure internal consistency, compliance with “best practices” and fulfillment of Consent Decree requirements.
Several regulations in the area of stops, searches and arrests have been approved by the OCDM, but will be released only when the entire section of regulations in this area has been approved. These regulations, like the Use of Force regulations, are interrelated and may be affected by changes to later chapters. Accordingly, all regulations in the area of stop, searches and arrests will be released together to prevent internal conflicts and inconsistencies. Completion of policy drafting and revisions of this section of regulations is anticipated by mid-2016.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 6 of 23
Body-Worn Cameras and In-Car Cameras Although the Consent Decree does not contain any references to body-worn cameras, the
NOPD voluntarily chose to implement the new technology well before the national initiative to use body-worn cameras in law enforcement. This technology assists police officers while making the Department more transparent and improving supervision. The Department has had in-car cameras for several years, and the Consent Decree mandates their continued use and maintenance. Integration of this technology presents practical and technical issues that the Department aggressively continues to address. The Department has overhauled its in-car camera system through the installation of new servers in each District that send their data nightly to a main server node at Headquarters. The new technology has enabled the Department to drastically improve its use of the car-camera system. The Department’s Audit and Review Unit is beginning to conduct reviews to track the level of compliance and ensure supervisors have the tools necessary to ensure their personnel are using the system appropriately.
In addition, the Superintendent has implemented a pilot program to assign body-worn cameras to front-line supervisors in patrol or general assignment units in each District on a trial basis. Their continued deployment depends on the availability of cameras to ensure that frontline officers have cameras first. The Department was awarded funding from the DOJ to purchase body-worn cameras for supervisors, which should help ensure that the pilot program is successful. In addition, body-worn camera use has substantially increased since May 2015, when the Department began conducting random reviews to provide management with a critical tool in monitoring body-worn camera use. The reviews demonstrate that officers took a video as required by policy 96 percent of the time in August, and that rate grew to 99 percent in November, demonstrating thorough and consistent use. The Department also has completed
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 7 of 23
installation of integration software to incorporate call-for-service data that have greatly facilitated labelling/tagging, storage, and access of recorded videos. Use of Force
The regulations encompassing the section of the Consent Decree under Use of Force were approved by the OCDM and DOJ and took effect on December 6, 2015. These policies are interrelated and have been released in small groups for training purposes, but all became effective on the same date. Substantive, meaningful changes have been made in this body of regulations to clearly reflect respect for life and safety while employing the minimal use of force within clearly delineated prohibitions.
With the help of DOJ and the OCDM, an identified change was made to the new chapter on Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEWs) after its initial approval. This revision process slightly delayed the release of the section but produced a better regulation that reflected a new threshold guideline for use of a CEW which all parties have agreed better defines when a CEW may be used. Crisis Intervention Team
As highlighted by the OCDM in its recent quarterly report, NOPD has made substantial progress implementing a Crisis Intervention Team program. NOPD has conducted two 40-hour CIT classes and graduated 49 officers from the CIT program, which focuses on de-escalating events involving individuals in crisis. The 40-hour training program includes presentations from local experts on mental illness, crisis intervention techniques, and other topics as well as site visits to local mental health facilities. In addition, CIT trainees participate in a variety of crisis role-play scenarios to hone their skills. NOPD will host multiple CIT classes in 2016 and is on pace to train 20 percent of patrol officers by August 2016 in accordance with Paragraph 115 of
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 8 of 23
the Consent Decree. In addition, NOPD will provide 8 hours of foundational crisis intervention training to all officers in 2016. NOPD also will begin training dispatchers in CIT. In preparation for this new training, NOPD attended a dispatcher training class in Monroe on December 15.
With the help of the CIT Planning Committee, composed of community mental health experts and relevant partners, NOPD submitted its crisis intervention policy to OCDM and the Department of Justice. The parties are in the “revision” stage of the policy drafting process, and it is expected that a final version of the CIT policy will be adopted soon.
The new CIT program has garnered positive reviews from officers and citizens alike. A local health clinic employee recently commented via text message, “We've had 2 crises this week involving NOPD and the staff [members] have all come back saying how positive their experiences were. Really the past few months our experiences with officers responding to a mental health crisis have not only been positive but it almost seems like a different police force … They've been pleasant, patient, professional and one could easily mistake any one of them for a social worker!” NOPD looks to build upon the program’s momentum in 2016. Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups
As noted by the OCDM in its recent quarterly report, the Department has made considerable progress regarding custodial interrogations and photographic lineups. The Department has installed new equipment to record all custodial interrogations in accordance with the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department has continued to conduct inspections of its logbooks to ensure they are filled out completely, accurately, and in accordance with regulations and the Consent Decree. According to the OCDM’s recent report, “as of July 2015, nearly every district and unit had reached substantial compliance. And some units are at 100% compliance.”
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 9 of 23
Bias-Free Policing NOPD has drafted several policies aimed at ensuring bias-free policing, including
chapters that address discriminatory and bias-based profiling, the immigration status of individuals during interactions with police officers, and hate crimes. These policies expand the Department’s mission to prevent profiling as well as bias- and hate-based crimes, and to provide police services to the public equitably and respectfully, without regard to race, national origin, ancestry, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or other similar characteristics. These policies have been submitted to the OCDM and DOJ, and approval is anticipated early next year. However, the Department does not intend to forestall the equitable provision of police services until these policies are finally approved. In the NOPD’s view, these policies will further emphasize and elucidate the manner in which those services are already provided.
Additionally, the Academy hosted the Bias Free Policing Train the Trainer and Command Staff training presented by Dr. Lorie Fridell. The training will be delivered to all personnel in 2016. Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
NOPD continues to make substantial progress toward compliance with the sexual assault requirements in the Consent Decree. NOPD worked closely with Mayor Mitch Landrieu's Sexual Violence Response Advisory Committee to develop a sexual assault policy for the Department, as well as detailed guidelines for the Sex Crimes Unit. The OCDM and DOJ approved both of these policies. The sexual assault policy went into effect November 15, 2015, and the Sex Crimes Unit policy will go into effect January 3, 2016. The implementation of these community-driven, best-practice policies is a significant step forward for the Department.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 10 of 23
The Department has taken numerous other actions to improve its response to sexual assault. The Sex Crimes Unit relocated to the Family Justice Center to better coordinate with that organization and improve access to its victim services. Further, the Special Victims Section has hired three social workers to help victims respond to the trauma of sexual assaults. NOPD has also hired two civilian investigators, with another in the hiring process, to assist detectives with investigations. In addition, NOPD received a $1 million grant from the Department of Justice to test sexual assault kits. These developments, in conjunction with victim-centered policies, will enhance NOPD's response to sexual assaults.
Special Victims Section leaders are actively monitoring coding and classifications of cases by reviewing weekly reports of any sexual assault cases changed to a non-sexual assault signal or marked unfounded. Supervisors are utilizing a new case tracking system to closely track the status and progress of investigations and improve oversight of the overall caseload.
NOPD continues to meet regularly with the Sexual Assault Response Team, a group of community advocates formed to improve interagency response to sexual assault, in compliance with Paragraph 210 of the Consent Decree. The Sexual Violence Response Advisory Committee successfully advocated for a change in Louisiana law to allow civilians in the Sexual Assault Response Team to review open cases with NOPD. This development will allow NOPD to have regularly scheduled multidisciplinary team meetings with relevant partners and fully comply with Paragraph 211 of the Consent Decree.
The Domestic Violence Unit continues to work closely with the Family Justice Center, where it is also located, to provide a victim-centered response to domestic violence incidents. The Domestic Violence Unit has implemented a checklist to ensure thorough investigations and case files. The domestic violence policy implemented in April has led to more thorough
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 11 of 23
investigations and reports on domestic violence cases. To further improve the data collection for domestic violence cases, NOPD added domestic violence-specific fields to the electronic reporting system. Additionally, Department members received intensive training regarding domestic violence and sexual assault policies. In 2016, refresher training on both of these topics is scheduled. Community Engagement
NOPD participated in a number of events for the National Night Out Against Crime on October 13. NOPD continues to meet regularly with community groups and work with citizens to address quality of life complaints. Noraann Winsbush of the Mayor’s Neighborhood Engagement Office conducted training with Academy recruit classes regarding Community Engagement and Police Community Advisory Boards. NOPD will soon begin publishing quarterly reports on www.nola.gov documenting its community engagement efforts by district. A summary report for 2015 community engagement, as well as the district reports for the fourth quarter, will be posted in the first quarter of 2016. NOPD will continue this reporting in 2016. Recruitment
In the second half of 2015, NOPD has continued to ramp up its recruitment efforts. To build upon Class 172, which began training in January, NOPD launched Class 173 in June and Class 174 in October. The Department plans to begin training Class 175 at the end of December, following the graduation of Class 174. These classes are notable for the significant diversity of experiences and backgrounds among the hired recruits. For instance, Class 174 is 44 percent female and includes recruits from more than a dozen states. The class also includes two recruits with master’s degrees and another twelve with bachelor’s degrees. Seven recruits in the class have military experience.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 12 of 23
In order to reduce processing times, NOPD introduced a number of reforms to the hiring process in the second half of 2015. Most importantly, NOPD has worked with Civil Service to provide walk-in testing. This allows applicants to take their Civil Service examinations any weekday, rather than waiting to be scheduled into a testing appointment. Prior to this change, applicants were waiting an average of 60 days to take these tests after submitting an application. NOPD has also significantly expanded its background investigation unit. The unit has expanded from five investigators at the start of 2015 to a total full-time staff of eight investigators. Additionally, the Superintendent has assigned eight additional investigators to the unit for the month of December, bringing the total number of investigators in the unit to sixteen.
NOPD also has hired two civilian recruiters to expand its recruitment campaign and engaged a private firm to help the Department recruit additional applicants. Previously, all recruitment activities were conducted by officers assigned to the background investigation unit. This impacted their ability to quickly complete background investigations. Having a dedicated civilian recruitment staff has enabled NOPD to focus its efforts on attending military transition events and college job fairs, while freeing up time for investigators to concentrate on their background investigations.
Finally, NOPD also continues to run a robust online advertising campaign and is running Spanish-language radio ads as well as Vietnamese-language print media. As a result of these efforts, NOPD surpassed its 2014 application total by mid-year and is on pace to surpass 4,500 applications in 2015. Academy and In-Service Training
The Academy has made great strides in developing and updating its curriculum for recruits and officers. These courses focus on implementing not only Consent Decree
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 13 of 23
requirements, but also address the specific training needs of the NOPD according to newly developed and approved policies, such as Use of Force, Stop, Search and Arrest, and Negotiated Settlements, based upon a thorough assessment of the training curriculum. This assessment included taking into account recruits’, officers’ and various city and community groups’ input regarding identified training needs. These identified needs also included evaluating the following sources: trends in misconduct complaints; trends in use of force reports; a summary of reports for accidents and analysis of officer safety issues; legislative changes and court decisions; Department and City policy changes; research reflecting the latest in law enforcement trends; and the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (May 2015).
To further enhance the curriculum, NOPD has been working with the OCDM and DOJ to implement additional online training, with assistance from the DOJ’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and from the Virginia Center for Policing Innovation (VCPI) – a leader in delivering the highest quality law enforcement training nationwide. These VCPI online courses are geared toward officers and include multiple topics within the realm of community policing.
Additionally, in early January 2016, to streamline and electronically track and store all policies and training, NOPD is implementing an electronic tracking and storage documentation software system, PowerDMS. This system will alert NOPD personnel as to required training, track the progression and completion of that training, and generate reports that will document the completion (or non-completion) of training by members of the Department. After successfully completing PowerDMS training, each user will provide an “electronic signature” which alerts the system that the user has completed training. This information will be collected electronically in the user’s personnel jacket, and further serves as a “feeder system” into the Early Warning
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 14 of 23
System. The training data collected by the Early Warning System via Power DMS will then be integrated into the user’s complete Employee Summary Report, as will discussed further.
In an effort to continue the Training Academy’s progression as not only a training facility but as an academic institution, NOPD staff have undergone training from California’s law enforcement agency oversight authority, California POST, which is considered one of the best training facilities in the country. California POST’s staff offered the following training: core substance of entry level training; model field training program; law enforcement professionalism; course certification; compliance review; and maintaining POST certification. This training has been incorporated into the updated Academy training at all levels – Recruits, Officers, Supervisors, and Command-level officers.
During the California POST training, NOPD personnel procured two very helpful instructor evaluation assessment instruments. These assessment instruments are currently being reviewed with the Federal Monitor who oversees Academy operations, in an effort to improve the Academy’s instructor evaluation processes.
Further, the Academy has hosted multiple “best case practices” trainings for its personnel at all levels by a renowned expert in the field of bias-free policing, Dr. Lorie Fridell. Dr. Fridell’s trainings were developed specifically for NOPD and focus on fair and impartial policing techniques.
Finally, the Academy completed a comprehensive training needs assessment that was utilized to develop a draft of the 2016 Annual Master Training Plan. The draft Training Plan has been submitted to the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor for review.
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 15 of 23
Officer Assistance and Support The Department has established and fully staffed its Officer Assistance and Support Unit.
Throughout the reporting period, the Unit has been delivering services to many members of the Department through the various tragedies and traumatic events that occurred since July 1, including Officer Holloway’s death; Officer Brown’s death and Commander Frick’s shooting. In particular, employees are using the confidential counseling services. Moreover, the Officer Assistance and Support Unit is incorporating the currently available officer support services, and how to access these services, into the annual officer in-service training. In 2016, the Unit anticipates full deployment of a comprehensive program that provides mental health services to members and their families, training on mental health stressors in law enforcement, and a peer support program. Promotions
During this reporting period, the NOPD promoted 32 members to key supervisory roles. These new supervisors are joining front-line supervisors in the field to increase the close and effective supervision of District patrol operations. In total, the Department promoted 10 officers to the rank of sergeant and 22 sergeants to the rank of lieutenant.
Before reporting to their new assignments, the new supervisors attended focused management training. All new sergeants began 80 hours of training that covered, among other areas of responsibility, officer performance management and evaluation; de-escalating conflict; investigating use of force; building community partnerships/community policing; and body-worn cameras. The newly appointed sergeants received an additional 40 hours of misconduct and complaint intake and investigation training. Some of the newly promoted lieutenants who have already completed extensive supervisor training took a shorter, 16-hour training course that
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 16 of 23
included delegation of supervisory tasks; monitoring performance; calls for service; and workload management. Supervisors also completed a 120-hour, high-level management training course, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Leadership in Police Organizations program. The Department currently is working with OCDM to determine the status of compliance with the promotions section of the Consent Decree and to determine whether any modifications to the protocol are necessary. Supervision
As mentioned in the previous Status Report, the Department understands the critical role of supervisors in achieving reform. For that reason, the Department has continued a variety of initiatives to provide the necessary support and infrastructure to ensure quality supervision. The Department has completed a workload assessment of supervisors and has already begun optimizing their time. First and foremost, the promotion of additional supervisors is critical to ensuring that the workload of supervisors is evenly distributed, and that there are enough supervisors in place to provide close and effective supervision. The promotion of additional supervisors facilitated the transition of some tasks from sergeants to lieutenants, such as random reviews of body-worn camera videos to incorporate into the ongoing evaluation of patrol officer performance. In addition, front-line supervisors no longer complete some of the scheduling and human resource-related tasks that took time away from their essential tasks; instead, desk officers are responsible for completing this work.
The Department has also modified its chapter titled “Negotiated Settlement Agreements” to reduce the time and number of formal disciplinary investigations of alleged violations in which an officer did not activate a body-worn camera. The Department is continuing to investigate other means to relieve some of the burdens associated with conducting formal
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 17 of 23
disciplinary investigations to ensure that the process is as efficient as possible. To that extent, with the release of the new Use of Force policies, the Department released an online reporting tool called “Blue Team” that will not only improve data quality through the use of data validation, but will also greatly facilitate the process through the use of technology. Blue Team is a Web-based system that will replace the paper reporting system used for reporting uses of force. Data entered via Blue Team is routed through chain of command for review.
Finally, the Department continues to conduct inspections of logbooks, Daily Activity Reports, and other tracking documents. The NOPD sent the administrative member of each NOPD unit to the aforementioned September audit training. The audit training contributed to the development of infrastructure to support administrative members in carrying out their responsibilities. Specifically, the training helps administrative members ensure close and effective supervision, such as proper use of body-worn and in-car cameras; complete and accurate use of logbooks; consistent and documented redirection and support; and other relevant tasks. Early Warning System
Considerable progress has been made on the Early Warning System. The NOPD is continually working to find new ways to better support its officers, provide supervisors with more effective management tools, and increase overall Department effectiveness. As part of that mission, a team within NOPD has been working over the past year to develop the Early Warning System, which is now known formally as Insight. Insight will streamline and integrate nine of NOPD’s existing information technology systems into a single, customized, next-generation police support system that will allow officers secure online access to their own personnel jackets.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 18 of 23
This access will allow officers to easily retrieve their records, and it will provide greater transparency through an Employee Summary Report.
As a support system, Insight aims to promote chain of command communication and intervention by assisting supervisors and Department management to be more effective with officer assessments so that they may offer assistance and intervention where needed. The system is intended to be an instrument to help retain and develop talented personnel; it is not designed to be a disciplinary tool. Insight’s roll-out plan is on schedule (in fact, some components are ahead of schedule) and testing of the system pilot is underway. Insight is scheduled for full release in November 2016, with anticipated early releases of key features, such as the aforementioned personnel jacket. Secondary Employment
The Office of Police Secondary Employment (OPSE) remains compliant with the majority of the Consent Decree's requirements and is working toward compliance with outstanding requirements. In the second half of 2015, OPSE incorporated traffic details into its operations. In the first half of 2016, OPSE will take over detail assignment and supervision for other special event details currently not under its control, such as second lines and certain details requiring specialized skills. Once this is completed, OPSE will oversee assignment of all details. In compliance with paragraph 349, OPSE released its annual report, which covers the time period of September 2014 – August 2015, detailing its accomplishments and future plans.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication During the past six months, the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) has implemented several
reforms aimed at achieving compliance with the Consent Decree and improving procedures
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 19 of 23
relevant to processing misconduct complaints. PIB has revised or drafted several forms in part to demonstrate and document Consent Decree compliance. In July, for example, PIB drafted and implemented a new Transmittal Form that documents the required timeline for every misconduct complaint reported to it. The form lists the dates of stages in the process, from the date NOPD became aware of the allegation through completion of the investigation. In August, PIB promulgated a revised Universal Complaint Form, making misconduct complaint-reporting more comprehensive and user-friendly.
PIB personnel also undertook significant instruction, training and consultation to improve policies and internal protocols. On July 8-10, PIB Chief Arlinda Westbrook, PIB Commander Gwen Nolan, and Compliance Bureau Commander John Thomas visited the Pittsburgh Police Department’s Office of Municipal Investigations to review its misconduct complaint process, as recommended by the OCDM. The NOPD command staff learned how the Pittsburgh Police Department addressed its Consent Decree, consulted with civilian investigators, and received training on issues such as credibility determinations.
During the week of August 3, PIB staff conducted a 40-hour training session at the Academy for supervisors on misconduct complaint investigations. A second training session for additional supervisors was held during the week of October 19. Recently hired PIB civilian intake specialists also attended this training. PIB personnel created PowerPoint presentations and lesson plans on data case management and recently implemented policies for this training session. During the week of September 28, PIB and Compliance staff attended a weeklong training session at the Training Academy on law enforcement auditing led by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Internal Audits and Inspections Division.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 20 of 23
Several new PIB-related policies have been implemented or drafted during the previous six months, including the aforementioned chapter titled “Complaint Investigation,” which became effective in July. Drafts of additional chapters were submitted for review to OCDM and the Department of Justice in September, including draft chapters addressing misconduct complaint investigator responsibilities, how misconduct is to be adjudicated, and a matrix of disciplinary penalties. The approval and implementation of these policies will complete a comprehensive revision of NOPD’s disciplinary policies.
Every complaint of retaliation lodged in 2014 has been reviewed and analyzed to inform a new proposed chapter titled “Workplace Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation,” which was drafted recently. A new chapter on negotiated settlement agreements was submitted for review in late October and has been approved and implemented, following a slight revision to the existing policy to allow for negotiated settlements of body-worn camera violations. The negotiated settlement policy has been a strong addition to NOPD’s disciplinary protocols; PIB has successfully completed 10 negotiated settlements of rank-initiated misconduct complaints during the past six months.
In support of these new policies, PIB command staff created a checklist for investigators to ensure complete investigations. After drafting the checklist, Commander Nolan met with other commanders in August and solicited feedback, revising the checklist to make it easier to use. PIB staff also provided brief training to commanders and DIU lieutenants on credibility assessments at the end of September.
In March, Compliance Bureau managers provided training on complaint investigations to all PIB staff. A Webinar was then created in June to train Department-wide personnel on the chapter, and viewing was mandatory for all officers. Along with daily training bulletins, the
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 21 of 23
Webinar emphasized policy changes, as well as Department-wide responsibilities with respect to complaint intake and investigation.
Five civilians have been hired to work in PIB to assist with administrative duties, after approval was obtained from the Civil Service Commission for the creation of the positions. Four of the civilians were hired to assist with complaint intake and processing; the fifth civilian assists the Force Investigation Team. PIB is currently reviewing its staffing, compiling a list of job duties and performance reviews for each position. Also, the disciplinary history of each PIB employee has been reviewed for Consent Decree compliance.
PIB staff members have distributed and posted placards, brochures, and forms designed to inform the community about the process of filing a misconduct complaint with NOPD. The Department obtained Vietnamese and Spanish translations of these documents in October, and they have been distributed to all NOPD District Stations. In October, the Compliance Bureau and PIB completed a PowerPoint slide show aimed at improving community awareness of the complaint process. The slide show will be used in public presentations to civic groups and other organizations, and it will be posted online.
PIB command staff members also have been reviewing administrative investigations to assess whether additional counseling, corrective measures or training is needed; as well as assessing the need for revisions to policies, strategies, tactics or training. Finally, PIB and the Compliance Bureau are revising PIB’s internal directives. These initiatives will further PIB’s goal of achieving compliance with the “Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication” section of the Consent Decree. For example, the chapter addressing misconduct complaint investigator responsibilities contains key provisions dealing with credibility determinations and training, policy, and tactical assessments. Although training on these
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 22 of 23 provisions of misconduct investigations has begun, approval and implementation of this policy will ensure their comprehensive application. Additionally, a revised Formal Investigation Report format and investigator’s checklist will be released when the policy is made effective. Transparency and Oversight
To meet the transparency requirements of the Consent Decree, NOPD continues to make relevant Consent Decree reports and updated policy manuals publicly available on its website. In addition, NOPD continues to meet with the United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group and Police Community Advisory Boards as required by the Consent Decree. NOPD officers assigned to a district have been participating in community meetings as required by the Consent Decree, and compliance with this requirement will be assessed.
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 466 Filed 01/06/16 Page 23 of 23
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz CHRISTY HAROWSKI (LSB #30712) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHERRELL R. SIMMS, 28227 SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY REBECCA H. DIETZ (LSB#28842) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 rhdietz@nola.gov
Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 6th of January, 2016 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz Rebecca H. Dietz
23

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD,” the “Department”) to implement the Consent Decree; to outline the City’s assessment of its progress; plans to correct any issues; and responses to any concerns that have been raised by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (“OCDM,” the “Monitor”). Introduction This report is the City’s fifth biannual Status Report, covering the period from January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2016. Halfway through 2016 NOPD has made progress implementing a number of key Consent Decree reforms, including:

 Enacting and cementing reforms in the Special Victims Section, leading to what the New Orleans Inspector General recently called a “remarkable turnaround;”

 Establishing an Audit and Review Unit to help NOPD and OCDM track progress towards complying with many areas of the Consent Decree;

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 26
 Creating an Authorized Interpreters program with officers certified in Spanish language interpretation;
 Putting into effect new misconduct and disciplinary policies that create a new framework for ensuring that the Department and its officers are both held accountable and judged fairly; and
 Proactively engaging with community mental health partners and leading a multi-agency effort to create a better system for dealing with mental health crises. The Department is committed to making sustained progress toward compliance with the
Consent Decree, while also increasing its staffing from critically low levels. NOPD continues to aggressively recruit new officers, and over the last year recruitment of new officers has outpaced officer attrition for the first time in five years. In the first half of 2016, NOPD has continued to build on this progress as Recruit Class 173 completed field training, Class 174 graduated from the Academy, and Class 176 began Academy training. The Department has plans to launch Class 177 in July. Building the Department’s strength in numbers and attracting more applicants is a key component to addressing many of the challenges that NOPD continues to face, including cutting response times and driving down crime rates.
In addition to seeking the best and brightest new officers from throughout the country, the NOPD recently made staffing changes at the Academy to improve the quality of the instruction that recruits receive. A civilian Academy administrator was hired to guide curriculum development, instructor evaluation, and other academic elements of the Academy. New commissioned leadership was also installed, with the former Commander of the Fifth District, Christopher Goodly, taking over as Commander at the Training Academy and Lt. Hudson Cutno
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 26
as Training Coordinator and Range Commander. Additionally, Academy training continues to be conducted on the University of New Orleans campus in excellent training facilities.
To improve police services and better utilize existing staffing resources, Superintendent of Police Michael Harrison announced a restructuring effort in early January that began to take effect after Mardi Gras. The plan included consolidating staff positions, reassigning district duties, reassigning staff from non-district assignments such as headquarters and the Motorcycle Unit, and redesigning the Quality of Life Program. Based on a staffing analysis performed in 2015, Superintendent Harrison ordered a redeployment to achieve the goal of adding up to 94 officers in a patrol function, resulting in a more visible police force and a surge in neighborhood patrols.
While restructuring to improve its responses to citizen calls for service, the Department has forged ahead with other new initiatives that have improved police relationships with the community. The NOPD now has a team of nine authorized Spanish interpreters working throughout the Department. When interpreters are not available or they need to speak to a citizen in a language other than Spanish, officers also have access to electronic devices that can connect officers at any time with interpreters who speak more than 180 languages. New recruits are now trained in interacting with Spanish-speaking residents, and the NOPD is actively recruiting Spanish-speaking officers. Similar efforts are underway to establish Vietnamese-speaking officers and services directed to the Vietnamese community. Audit and Review Unit
The Audit and Review Unit, a new unit within the Compliance Bureau, established a foundation for its operations, laid the groundwork for auditing numerous areas, and performed numerous reviews of Consent Decree topics. The Unit helped to draft Chapter 11.4.1, “Audit
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 26
and Reviews” and the Audit and Review Unit Standard Operating Guidelines to govern its operations. These policies were approved by the OCDM and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in June. In advance of the approval of these policies, the Audit and Review Unit began drafting audit and review work plans covering numerous areas of the Consent Decree including supervision, custodial interrogations, photographic line-ups, and secondary employment. The OCDM and DOJ recently approved an audit work plan for reviewing the operations of the Office of Secondary Employment. A comprehensive audit is underway.
Starting in June, the Unit began performing monthly reviews of supervision, custodial interrogation, photographic line-ups, body-worn cameras, and in-car cameras. Using the data collected in these reviews, the Unit generates a scorecard that identifies areas requiring improvement. The Unit will monitor improvement in subsequent reviews. The goal of this review process is to enhance accountability and transparency within the Department regarding Consent Decree compliance. To facilitate the compliance process, the Audit and Review Unit, with assistance from other members of the Compliance Bureau, created compliance guides for supervision, custodial interrogations, and photographic line-ups.
The Compliance Bureau partnered with OCDM to develop methodologies for conducting the outcome assessments called for in Consent Decree ¶ 448. The methodologies have been approved by OCDM, and the Audit and Review Unit is gathering the data and performing the necessary analysis for the outcome measures. Completed reports on the outcome measures will be submitted to OCDM for review. Policies
Nine policies submitted by NOPD to DOJ and OCDM were approved during the past six months (the “reporting period”), including Chapter 1.9, “Arrests”; Chapter 41.26, “Crisis
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 26
Transportation Service”; Chapter 41.25, “Crisis Intervention”; Chapter 26.2, “Adjudication of Misconduct”; Chapter 26.2.1, “Disciplinary Matrix/Penalty Schedule”; Chapter 41.13, “BiasFree Policing”; Chapter 41.3.2, “Body Worn Camera Inadvertent Misuse and Nonuse”; Chapter 41.6.1, “Immigration Status”; and Chapter 52.1.2, “Misconduct Complaint Investigator Responsibilities.” Revisions of two more policies were approved: Chapter 1.2.4, “Search and Seizure” and Chapter 1.2.4.1, “Stops/Terry Stops.”
At the request of Judge Morgan, the Compliance Bureau is in the process of converting all the Department’s existing policies from their present format to the format used by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement, i.e. the “chapter” format. Once this process is complete, new and old policies will be ordered and indexed together in one manual that will be available to the public online. All those documents are currently available online, but the newly approved policies have been posted separately; the new manual will place all policies in one location. Use of Force
The Department implemented a broad array of policies related to use of force at the end of last year. The main policy, Chapter 1.3, “Use of Force,” and 11 other subsidiary policies governing subjects such as vehicle pursuits and the use of canines and electrical weapons (Tasers) became effective on December 5, 2015. The Department continues to emphasize key tenets of those policies, such as the concept of de-escalation, through day-to-day supervision, discipline, and training. In addition, the Department added another level of oversight for all serious incidents involving force when it began to convene its Use of Force Review Board, a command-level body whose composition and function are dictated by the recently implemented policy of the same name.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 26
The Use of Force Review Board has three voting members, including the deputy superintendents of the Field Operations Bureau, the Public Integrity Bureau, and the Investigations and Support Bureau. The Commander of the Education and Training Division, and the Deputy Superintendent of the Compliance Bureau serve as non-voting members. The Board reviews all serious uses of force and investigations by the Force Investigation Team, whose members present cases to Board members during meetings. The Board can then order additional investigation, if necessary; determine whether the use of force violated policy; refer a case for disciplinary action; direct supervisors to take other corrective action; and determine whether a case raises additional tactical, equipment, training, or policy concerns. Ultimately, the Board votes on whether the use of force in each case was justified or not. The Board has met four times since January 1, 2016, and it has reviewed 11 cases. Members of OCDM lauded the initiative at a May 19 public hearing, complimenting the “open, self-critical analysis” they witnessed during a Jan. 22 meeting of the Board. Crisis Intervention Team
Two new NOPD policies—Chapter 41.25, “Crisis Intervention,” and Chapter 41.26, “Crisis Transportation Service”—went into effect on March 13 after receiving approval from DOJ and OCDM. The Department drafted these policies in collaboration with the CIT Planning Committee, which is composed of community experts. The implementation of these policies represents another significant step forward for NOPD’s CIT program, building upon the establishment of the 40-hour CIT certification training in August 2015.
Chapter 41.25, “Crisis Intervention,” mandates that officers responding to a crisis call submit an electronic Crisis Intervention Form detailing the circumstances and outcome of the call. The Department will publish midyear aggregate data compiled from Crisis Intervention
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 7 of 26
Forms on its website in compliance with Consent Decree ¶ 113. In addition, NOPD has utilized this data to identify individuals who have been involved in multiple crisis encounters with NOPD, and NOPD has formed a Mental Health Review Board with partner agencies to develop solutions to assist these individuals in obtaining appropriate care solutions. Through the use of the Crisis Intervention Form data, the Department has enhanced the Planning Committee’s ability to serve as a “problem-solving forum” as called for in ¶ 120.
NOPD trained its third class of CIT officers from May 23 to May 27, bringing the total number of NOPD-trained CIT officers to 69. NOPD anticipates hosting at least two trainings in the second half of 2016 to improve NOPD’s ability to respond with specially trained officers and to comply with the ¶ 115 requirement of training 20% of the patrol division. The Department has already provided a CIT recertification training of eight hours to previous CIT graduates and will continue to do so for all active CIT officers on an annual basis in compliance with ¶ 114.
NOPD is providing eight hours of crisis intervention in-service training for all officers in 2016 in compliance with ¶ 118. New police recruits continue to receive 16 hours of crisis intervention training in their introductory training. The Department conducted its first crisis intervention trainings for call takers and dispatchers in June and will offer additional communications trainings throughout the year in compliance with ¶ 119.
NOPD’s CIT program has been gaining recognition from community partners for the valuable role it plays in the community’s response to mental health and substance abuse issues. The Department has provided crisis intervention trainings to outside agencies including Probation and Parole, and the New Orleans Family Justice Center. NOPD’s CIT coordinators have presented at the annual members meeting for National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”) New Orleans, a statewide NAMI conference, and a Metropolitan Human Services
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 8 of 26
District regional council meeting, and the development of NOPD’s CIT program was highlighted in a quarterly newsletter from NAMI New Orleans. Additionally, the NOPD CIT coordination team frequently receives requests from officers and partner agencies to facilitate with incidents and address ongoing problems.
While CIT officers play a critical role in the community’s response to mental health and substance abuse issues, the Department understands that systemic issues beyond the Department’s immediate control need to be addressed in order to produce a better system for individuals in crisis in New Orleans. To that end, NOPD has partnered with the New Orleans Health Department and the Vera Institute of Justice to apply for grant funding to establish a prebooking diversion program, which would connect individuals in crisis to necessary services and divert the individuals from the criminal justice system when appropriate. NOPD is simultaneously working with the Metropolitan Human Services District to establish a crisis stabilization unit where officers could bring individuals in crisis to receive care, diverting them from the criminal justice system when appropriate. These efforts, in tandem with the aforementioned Mental Health Review Board, demonstrate NOPD’s proactivity in improving the overall community response to mental-health and substance-abuse issues. Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups
In response to the Monitor’s findings on custodial interrogations and photographic lineups, the Audit and Review Unit is conducting monthly reviews to identify deficiencies, make recommendations, and track progress over time. Initial results demonstrate progress meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree, and the Department is optimistic that full compliance can be achieved in the second half of the year. Bias-Free Policing
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 9 of 26
In the area of bias-free policing, the Department made great strides during the reporting period with the approval of its “Bias-Free Policing” and “Immigration Status” policies, and the official designation of nine Department-authorized Spanish interpreters, both of which are required by the Consent Decree. The Department’s “Bias-Free Policing” policy makes clear that the Department prohibits the inappropriate reliance on characteristics such as race, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, creed, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, and housing status in making law-enforcement decisions. Bias-based policing, which includes discriminatory policing or “profiling,” is considered misconduct.
The NOPD’s “Immigration Status” policy became effective on February 28, 2016, after extended negotiations among the parties. This policy has been widely misunderstood as preventing cooperation between the City and the federal government on immigration issues. To the contrary, the City has cooperated and continues to cooperate with federal authorities including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under limited circumstances. The policy simply makes it clear that the New Orleans Police Department does not enforce civil immigration laws. The Department always has detained individuals with outstanding criminal warrants, regardless of immigration status, and will continue to do so. The City believes this approach is constitutional, consistent with best practices, and will foster a better bond of trust between the City’s police officers and the communities they serve.
On February 27, 2016, the Civil Service Department administered an oral bilingual proficiency exam in collaboration with Dr. Lisbeth Philip, a Loyola University professor who is academic director of the Center for Latin American Studies and Caribbean Studies’ Translation and Interpreting Program. Ten NOPD employees took the exam, and nine passed, including a
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 10 of 26
lieutenant, a sergeant, six officers, and a civilian intake specialist at the Public Integrity Bureau. Because the Department does not have an approved policy for Limited English Proficient Services—a draft policy is currently under review by OCDM and DOJ—the Field Operations Bureau promulgated a directive that currently governs the deployment and assignment of authorized interpreters. In addition to establishing its authorized interpreters, the Department renewed a contract with the manufacturer of a mobile interpretation device known as ELSA (Enabling Language Service Anywhere), making the devices available at all eight police districts. Although NOPD authorized interpreters can be available during their regular shifts, the ELSA devices can be accessed at any time of day or night. The devices connect officers to interpreters who can speak more than 180 languages, improving communication and interactions between officers and foreign-language speakers. The Department will continue to build its team of bilingual officers, and NOPD anticipates offering another Spanish exam during this year, with a Vietnamese exam to follow once a sufficient number of candidates are identified. Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
Following up on its report in 2014, the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) conducted an audit of NOPD’s sexual assault investigations and classifications for the period of October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The OIG stated in its June audit report that the Department “resolved all of the previous findings in the 2014 audit.” According to the audit report, 100% of cases included proper documentation, demonstrated supervisory review, and were classified correctly according to Louisiana Revised Statutes. Of the 154 calls included in the audit, “63 were initially reported as a miscellaneous offense and were reclassified (upgraded) to an aggravated rape, simple rape, or oral sexual battery. In addition, no allegations of rape were reclassified (downgraded) to a miscellaneous offense.” The Department is pleased with the
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 11 of 26
recognition of the positive changes in the Special Victims Section and is committed to sustaining these reforms and further improving its response to sexual assaults.
To get to this point, the Department has undertaken numerous reform efforts to improve the Special Victims Section (“SVS”), which is composed of the Sex Crimes Unit, Child Abuse Unit, and Domestic Violence Unit. The Department has made significant progress creating and implementing policies pertaining to domestic violence and sexual assault. Chapter 42.4, “Domestic Violence,” and the Domestic Violence Unit Standard Operating Guidelines were implemented on April 5, 2015. The Department implemented Chapter 42.2, “Sexual Assault,” on November 15, 2015 to provide detailed guidelines for patrol’s response to sexual assaults. The Sex Crimes Unit Standard Operating Guidelines went into effect on January 3, 2016 and govern the operations and procedures of the Sex Crimes Unit, which handles adult sexual assault investigations. The Department submitted Chapter 42.19, “Child Abuse,” and the Child Abuse Unit Standard Operating Guidelines for review in March. The Department collaborated with local subject matter experts in these fields to create these policies and will continue to work with these experts to improve NOPD’s response to these incidents.
The Special Victims Section Commander has been collaborating with leaders of the Sexual Assault Response Team to create a detective training curriculum that thoroughly educates new detectives in conducting investigations and complies with the requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 204. While the Department has been working on establishing this curriculum, SVS detectives have continued to participate in available training, and the SVS Commander and partner agencies frequently host roll-call trainings on a variety of topics, including issues noted in OCDM’s most recent quarterly report, during weekly COMSTAT meetings. The Department
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 12 of 26
plans to participate in a train-the-trainer program in the near future to augment its ability to train detectives on how to conduct effective, thorough investigations.
SVS continues to utilize enhanced case tracking systems developed in collaboration with the Compliance Bureau to give supervisors and detectives a clearer picture of investigative progress. The trackers facilitate better supervision by providing overview statistics and indicating when supplemental reports are past due. With the additional data available in the current case tracking system, SVS is in the process of overhauling its COMSTAT meetings to improve their efficacy.
SVS has sustained its improvements in sexual assault kit tracking and expects to test about 350 untested kits through a recent grant award. The grant also funded the hiring of a social worker to communicate with survivors of sexual assaults to discuss the testing of these kits. In addition, the grant paid for the hiring of a liaison to coordinate evidence testing with SVS and the Louisiana State Police DNA crime lab. The Department continues to focus on following up on Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”) hits resulting from DNA testing, and NOPD is collaborating with the Louisiana State Police to follow up on all outstanding CODIS hits.
SVS maintains the documentation required by Consent Decree ¶ 206 for all 2015 and 2016 incidents that were originally classified as a sexual assault but were later changed to a miscellaneous classification (Signal 21). Unfounded sexual assaults are not classified under a miscellaneous classification.
The Sex Crimes Unit began participating in multidisciplinary team (“MDT”) meetings that convene relevant partners to discuss the progress of cases. These MDT meetings are modeled after the Child Abuse Unit’s MDT meetings and will allow the Sex Crimes Unit to improve its investigations and comply with Consent Decree ¶ 114.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 13 of 26
The Domestic Violence Unit has implemented a case file documentation checklist to ensure that domestic violence investigations conducted by the unit include the necessary documentation. To prevent any domestic violence calls from going unaddressed, the Alternative Police Response Unit, which takes police reports over the telephone for incidents that do not require an immediate response to the scene, began contacting complainants from domestic violence calls that were classified as “gone on arrival,” meaning the responding officers were unable to locate the complainant. The follow-up from the Alternative Police Response Unit helps to ensure that NOPD follows up on all complainants seeking help from the Department regarding domestic violence incidents.
The Department is actively working to increase the staffing of the Special Victims Section to decrease caseloads. The Department recently transferred a new detective to each of the Sex Crimes, Child Abuse, and Domestic Violence units, and one Sex Crimes detective promoted to sergeant now supervises sexual assault investigations. SVS also has hired three civilian investigators to assist with investigations as well as three social workers to facilitate survivors in their recovery from these traumatic incidents. Through increased staffing and growing reforms, NOPD is committed to continually improving its response to sexual assault and domestic violence. Community Engagement
In the first quarter of 2016, NOPD restructured the Department to enhance public safety by deploying more officers to street patrols in an effort to decrease response times to calls for service. The deployed officers previously were not required to answer call for service due to their job functions. Among the officers deployed to patrol platoons were the Community Coordinating sergeants and the Quality of Life (“QOL”) officers. To ensure that all QOL issues and important
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 14 of 26
community engagement initiatives are still being addressed, the Department is attempting to implement initiatives to ensure that officers will be available to commit time to community engagement and community policing activities.
The goal of the redeployment is to decrease response times, while retaining the integrity of the community engagement program. Rather than concentrating quality of life issues in a single officer for each District, every officer must now be a quality of life officer. Informal guidance on the proper handling of QOL matters is available to officers on the Department’s intranet. Citizens can still report QOL issues either through newly created District e-mail addresses or through the Department’s non-emergency line. Officers have been dispatched on more than 500 quality of life calls in the first three months of this program.
Recruits are also now participating in community engagement events during training at the Academy. A community engagement summary report for 2015 has been posted in the first quarter of this year, and a quarterly report for the first quarter of 2016 has been posted on the Department’s website on the Consent Decree and Policing Data pages. Recruitment
NOPD has continued to ramp up its recruitment efforts. Class 174 graduated in May 2016. This class is notable for the significant diversity of experiences and backgrounds among the hired recruits. Twelve of the twenty-eight recruits who graduated from this class are female, making it one of the most gender-diverse classes in recent NOPD history. Additionally, eleven states besides Louisiana are represented by members of this class, and the class includes recruits born in Jamaica and Mexico.
On May 2, 2016, Class 176 started training with the largest class held since the Department launched its “Get Behind The Badge” campaign in 2013. This class builds upon the
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 15 of 26
diversity of recent NOPD classes. Recruits from a total of 15 states are represented in this class, and 14 of the recruits have served in the United States Armed Forces. The class also includes four experienced lateral officers who are leaving police departments in Alabama, South Carolina, Ohio, and North Dakota to join the NOPD.
Two new initiatives under the “Get Behind The Badge’ campaign include an NOPD partnership with Dillard University to encourage recent Dillard graduates to join the Department, and another partnership between NOPD and McDonald’s that will significantly expand the Department’s recruitment campaign efforts locally. Recruitment advertisements will begin appearing on tray liners inside 18 McDonald’s restaurants in the Greater New Orleans area. Officers recently filled four local McDonald’s restaurants on a Saturday morning—June 4—to meet with members of the community in an outreach program called “Coffee with Cops.” The initiative, which is expected to recur monthly, serves as a community policing effort as well as a recruiting tool. Academy and In-Service Training
In January 2016, Deputy Superintendent John Thomas was appointed to the Management Services Bureau, which includes oversight of the Training Academy. Recently, Commander Christopher Goodly also was assigned to lead the Academy, in addition to Lieutenant Hudson Cutno, Ph.D., who serves as the Academy’s Training Liaison. In June 2016, Dr. Deidre Magee was appointed as the Academy’s Academic Director. Dr. Magee is charged with enhancing the academic rigor of all courses by instituting problem-based learning and adult learning theories. She also will develop instruments to assess and analyze survey data regarding the retention of student learning, provide feedback to Academy instructors and students based upon her analyses of that data, and provide on-going professional development, in addition to other academic-
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 16 of 26
related duties. Within the next 6 months, the Academy also plans to hire a legal instructor, who will provide legal updates and coordinate the legal instruction team to keep all recruits and officers aware of the latest case law that pertains to their daily job tasks, in addition to incorporating all NOPD policies.
In January 2016, the Academy also instituted the 2016 Annual Master Training Plan (“AMTP”). The 2016 AMTP provides guidance, lays out the structure of the Academy’s expectations of all recruits and officers, and includes all courses that are scheduled for the year, including Consent Decree mandated courses. Although a handful of 2016’s Consent Decree mandated courses are delivered online, moving into 2017, all Consent Decree courses will be taught in the classroom or field. The 2016 AMTP includes not only Consent Decree-required training paragraphs, but also training on newly revised Chapters, such as Use of Force, Use of Force Review Board, Force Investigation Team, Reporting Use of Force, Control Devices and Technology, and Handcuffing and Restraint Devices, in addition to many other important policies. The Academy is currently in the process of developing the 2017 AMTP. To that end, new focus group questions have been developed that will quantitatively and qualitatively assess all Departmental personnel views of both gaps and strengths in the courses offered by the Academy. The data gathered through these focus groups should provide the necessary information to develop the Training Needs Assessment, which will guide the development of the 2017 AMTP.
Further, the Academy has developed a close working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office as both entities have offered their legal training services at the Academy. Their involvement ensures that key training, such as evidence collection and courtroom testimony, improves the acceptance and prosecution of cases brought
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 17 of 26
to the District Attorney’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office. This involvement has proven particularly beneficial in new detective trainings, the first of which was held between May 23 and 27, 2016. During this training, the District Attorney’s Office reported that BWC training and usage has increased the acceptance and successful prosecution of cases. Additionally, BWC usage has proven to greatly reduce officer misconduct complaints, as unwarranted complaints may be expediently addressed via review of the camera footage.
Lastly, EPIC training was developed specifically for the Department and incorporated into the Academy’s training curriculum in spring 2016. EPIC, or Ethical Policing Is Courageous, is an innovative peer-intervention program that is designed to improve the way that officers address and rectify potential mistakes, policy violations, and misconduct of fellow officers. EPIC empowers and supports officers in playing a meaningful role in “policing” one another. Training and implementation of this important program will result in timely interventions among officers, thus benefitting both the general public and the Department.
Overall, the Academy continues to progress in implementing Consent Decree training paragraphs. In the selection of Academy leadership, instructors, and in updated courses—in addition to developing new courses—the Department continues to demonstrate its commitment to improving the quality of its academic programming. Officer Assistance and Support
The Department has met its goal set forth in the last biannual report. The Officer Assistance Program (“OAP”) is fully implemented, providing mental health services to members and their families, training on mental health stressors in law enforcement, and a peer support program. OAP staff members now have an independent facility, not located within or proximate to any NOPD site, to provide their services in a confidential setting.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 18 of 26
The OAP has made significant progress in the first half of 2016. Two policies have been drafted governing the program and are awaiting approval. The OAP provides weekly training at the Academy that each officer receives, and the OAP issues a “Mental Matters” newspaper to highlight upcoming activities within the program. The latest Mental Matters newsletter was published February 23, 2016, and is distributed via e-mail to officers. The newsletter offers educational information on mental health and contains a phone contact if a family member or officer needs help addressing any mental health needs.
During this reporting period, 11 officers, and/or family members have accessed the OAP Office. To date, 81 officers have accessed the program and received in-house services and/or referrals to outside professionals/agencies for effective care. Of these, 16 cases have remained in continuous counseling services, on an in-house basis through the program. This includes officers as well as family and significant other members.
An anonymous mental health assessment form is pending internal review. Once approved, it will be disseminated to all employees for voluntarily completion. This tool will give the OAP office a baseline of the mental health status of NOPD officers. Over time this new tool will allow for program development and intervention as needed to maximize the effectiveness of NOPD officers. Promotions
During this reporting period, NOPD promoted 26 members to key supervisory roles. These new supervisors are joining front-line supervisors in the field to increase the close and effective supervision of District patrol operations. In total, the Department promoted 17 officers to the rank of sergeant and nine sergeants to the rank of lieutenant.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 19 of 26
NOPD has implemented a performance evaluation form that must be completed in
addition to the Civil Service evaluation. NOPD posted an online training in the form of a
webinar to instruct supervisors on filling out the forms. The performance evaluations now
provide evaluation of officers’ community engagement responsibilities pursuant to Consent
Decree ¶ 296.
The “Promotions and Promotion Committee” draft policy has not been finalized yet but
lists community engagement and policing principles in the promotional eligibility section. The
following factors are used by the Promotion Committee to assess a candidate’s promotion
eligibility:
(a) Effective use of community-policing strategies; (b) Number of sustained and non-sustained complaints; (c) Number and circumstances of uses of force, including any found to be
out of policy and use of force complaints; (d) Disciplinary history; (e) Problem-solving skills; (f) Interpersonal skills; (g) Education; (h) Specialized training; (i) Support for departmental integrity measures; (j) Attendance record for the past two years, including leave balances;
and (k) Annual performance evaluations for the previous two years.
Supervision
The Department’s recent promotions aim to decrease the supervisory workload per
supervisor, addressing an issue OCDM noted in its last quarterly report. These promotions are in
addition to the 22 lieutenants and 10 sergeants promoted in 2015 during the Department’s initial
efforts to balance supervisor-to-subordinate ratios.
These new supervisors already have participated in multiple trainings preparing them to
perform their critical duties. All new supervisors participated in Leadership in Police
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 20 of 26
Organization training, a professional management program developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which emphasizes the systematic development of leaders at all levels of an organization. NOPD has now provided this top-notch leadership training to 290 of its members, representing more than 30,000 hours of intensive supervisor training devoted to this program alone. These new leaders also undergo 40 hours of instruction related to use of force reporting and misconduct policies conducted by the Public Integrity Bureau. In addition, these supervisors are required to participate in two separate tracks of training designed specifically for new supervisors. New sergeants are provided with 40 hours of instruction, and new lieutenants attend a 16-hour training program. All of this training is in addition to the annual, 40 hour inservice training program that all supervisors are required to attend.
NOPD is implementing numerous tools to facilitate supervisory effectiveness and efficiency. The Department’s early intervention system, known as Insight, is set to be implemented on schedule in the fall, providing supervisors additional tools for closely and effectively monitoring the activities of officers. Additionally, the Department has nearly finalized the development of a Supervisor Feedback Log that will electronically track redirection and counseling of officers on deficient practices, as well as document support of officers in the form of commendations for superior performance or supervisor counseling. The Supervisor Feedback Log will centralize and standardize documentation of close and effective supervision and facilitate compliance with elements of Consent Decree ¶ 306. The Department has implemented and is working toward implementing other enhanced supervisory tools and is committed to providing supervisors with the necessary tools to supervise closely, effectively, and efficiently.
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 21 of 26
In conjunction with these efforts to improve supervisory tools, the Department is striving to eliminate inefficient supervisory burdens. The Department has convened a lieutenant workload reduction working group, modeled after a successful work group focused on resolving patrol officer inefficiencies, to identify and resolve inefficiencies and issues that lieutenants face. The Department will continue to convene its members to identify problems and produce solutions to remedy those problems.
Body-worn camera (“BWC”) utilization remains very high, with a 99% utilization rate in an April 20 review. The Commander of the Compliance Bureau gave a presentation at the National Body Worn Camera Conference to help inform the development of BWC programs at agencies across the country. Although the utilization rates for in-car cameras are not as high, a monthly compliance check of in-car camera use has begun, with the goal of increasing in-car camera utilization to rates comparable with BWC usage.. Secondary Employment
The Office of Police Secondary Employment is working toward full compliance. In the first half of 2016, the Office of Secondary Employment (“OPSE”) incorporated special event details into its operations, specifically focused on the assignment and supervision of officers during special events in the City, such as second lines and certain details requiring specialized skills. NOPD’s Special Events Section will continue to plan some events, but OPSE will assign officers to details, compensate officers, and interact with the customers.
OPSE and NOPD have partnered to share more data with the goal of achieving compliance. OPSE now receives from NOPD officer transfer lists containing any new recruits and transfers so that OPSE can track the locations of all officers, and also so that OPSE can track
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 22 of 26
which officers are recruits and which officers have been promoted, to remain compliant with Consent Decree ¶ 358.
POST certified commissioned members who completed Field Training Officer training, but have not obtained permanent status of Civil Service “Police Officer I,” may work secondary employment if supervised by a ranking officer at the grade of sergeant or above. New officers who have not yet attained one year of service are generally without permanent status for the first several months after their promotion to Police Officer I.
OPSE and NOPD also partnered to create an electronic OPSE authorization form to comply with Consent Decree ¶ 356. NOPD and the Coordinating Office are establishing a standard form by which NOPD employees can register to work secondary employment assignments. The electronic form can be accessed by officers through the Department’s intranet. The new form allows for a more efficient mechanism to track and share data concerning secondary detail authorization. OPSE now receives suspension letters from PIB to comply with Consent Decree ¶ 356.
When determining whether an NOPD employee qualifies for authorization to work secondary employment, NOPD and the Coordinating Office evaluate factors that include the applicant’s disciplinary record, complaint history, and work performance history. NOPD has also drafted an audit work plan to audit OPSE; the work plan was approved in June and the audit is now under way. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
The Department’s disciplinary procedures were improved in May with the implementation of four crucial policies related to misconduct. The following policies became effective on May 15: Chapter 26.2, “Adjudication of Misconduct”; Chapter 26.2.1, “Disciplinary
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 23 of 26
Matrix/Penalty Schedule”; Chapter 41.3.2, “Body Worn Camera Inadvertent Misuse and Nonuse”; and Chapter 52.1.2, “Misconduct Complaint Investigator Responsibilities.” The first two policies are the most significant because, paired together, they govern the process by which NOPD disciplines employees for violations of law or policy, and they determine the appropriate punishment for those violations. The Disciplinary Matrix and Penalty Schedule meets the Consent Decree’s requirements of establishing a presumptive range for each type of rule violation, increasing the presumptive penalty for subsequent violations, and requiring that any deviation from the presumptive penalty must be justified in writing by aggravating or mitigating factors. The new policy provides greater predictability and consistency, so that the appropriate penalty for any given offense is readily available to accused employees and the supervisors who must mete out discipline for sustained violations.
The Adjudication of Misconduct policy, which is a companion to the Disciplinary Matrix and Penalty Schedule, governs the bifurcated process of determining the disposition of an alleged violation (i.e., whether it will be sustained) and the imposition of a penalty. This adjudication procedure occurs through a Predisposition Conference and a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing. During the Predisposition Conference, an accused employee can present evidence relevant to his or her defense and dispute the charges lodged against him or her. If a charge is sustained, meaning that a hearing officer determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred, then the matter proceeds to a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing. At that hearing, a hearing officer considers the presumptive penalty and penalty range dictated by the Disciplinary Matrix and Penalty Schedule. Based on any mitigating or aggravating factors presented, the hearing officer then recommends a penalty, which can become final only after the Superintendent of
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 24 of 26
Police approves it. The approval and implementation of these two policies will ensure that the Department’s discipline is fair and consistent.
The other two disciplinary policies implemented recently deal with misconduct complaint investigation and redirection, an alternative to discipline for minor infractions. As its title suggests, Misconduct Complaint Investigator Responsibilities dictates specific requirements for misconduct investigators, such as recording interviews with complainants, canvassing for witnesses, obtaining evidence, and making credibility assessments in a final investigative report. Body Worn Camera Inadvertent Misuse and Nonuse allows supervisors to correct the behavior of officers who unintentionally fail to comply with Department policy on body-worn cameras (“BWCs”). In other words, if an officer attempts to activate his/her camera timely but fails to activate it, he or she may be eligible for redirection (a form of counseling). This option is available only for inadvertent, minor violations. Circumstances involving a public complaint of misconduct, allegations of criminal behavior, or any other alleged policy violation are ineligible for redirection. The policy provides the Department with a broad range of responses to potential violations—including support, redirection, counseling, and punishment—to ensure employee infractions are corrected and employees are disciplined appropriately.
During the reporting period, the Public Integrity Bureau has gained a significant number of new staff. Although one officer resigned from the Force Investigation Team, three sergeants were added to the team over the past six months. Another officer departed the PIB’s Special Investigations Section, but the Bureau gained two command-level officers, including a captain in March and a lieutenant in April. Bolstering the Bureau’s ranks strengthens the Department’s commitment to misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication, as well as its investigation and oversight of use of force incidents.
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 25 of 26
Transparency and Oversight To meet the transparency requirements of the Consent Decree, NOPD continues to make
relevant Consent Decree reports and updated policy manuals publicly available on its website. In addition, NOPD continues to meet with the United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group and Police Community Advisory Boards as required by the Consent Decree. NOPD officers assigned to a district have been participating in community meetings as required by the Consent Decree, and compliance with this requirement will be assessed.
NOPD has also held for the first time, semi-annual community meetings in accordance with transparency requirements. The meetings were publicized via the Public Information Office. The meetings were scheduled in locations that were easily accessible to public transportation and child care centers. The Deputy Chief of Compliance presented the community with information regarding the Consent Decree requirements, policy changes, pertinent reports, and issues involving public trust and constitutional policing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz CHERRELL R. SIMMS, 28227 SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY REBECCA H. DIETZ (LSB#_____) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 rhdietz@nola.gov
Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
25

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 483 Filed 07/27/16 Page 26 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 27th of July, 2016 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz Rebecca H. Dietz
26

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) since the entry of the Consent Decree, the City’s assessment of its progress, plans to correct any issues, and to respond to any concerns that have been raised by the Consent Decree Monitor. Introduction
Following the City’s initial Status Report filed on July 2, 2014, this document is the City’s second biannual Status Report, covering the period from July 3, 2014, to December 31, 2014. During this six-month period, the NOPD faced severe challenges and underwent momentous changes, notably including the August 18, 2014 departure of Superintendent Ronal Serpas and the ensuing appointment of then-Commander Michael Harrison (now Superintendent) assigned to fill the post. On November 12, 2014, the Inspector General issued a report that alleged pervasive problems within the NOPD’s Special Victims Section, which prompted staff reassignments and an internal investigation led by a newly created task force. On November 20, 2014, the New Orleans City Council approved the City’s 2015 Capital and General Fund

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 2 of 23
budgets, which includes funding for 150 new police officers, 100 new police cars, more bodyworn cameras, and a 5 percent pay raise for officers. More recently, the NOPD celebrated the graduation of Recruit Class No. 170 on December 5, 2014, adding 26 newly minted officers to the police force. During the reporting period, the NOPD continually met with members of the Court-appointed Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (the “Monitor” or “monitoring team”), providing complete, unfettered access to personnel, operations, and data. Throughout the NOPD’s ongoing efforts to reform itself, the Department strives for transparency to assist and complement the Monitor’s oversight. The Monitor issued its Third 2014 Quarterly Report on December 22, 2014, which covered July to September 2014—a time during which the Department was undergoing extensive leadership changes while also taking substantial steps to implement reforms that comply with the Consent Decree.
When Ronal Serpas stepped down in August, Mayor Mitch Landrieu named as his interim replacement Michael Harrison, a 23-year veteran of the NOPD who was then serving as commander of the Seventh District. Nearly two months later, the Mayor promoted Harrison, removing the “interim” tag from his title. Superintendent Harrison revamped the NOPD’s leadership structure, moving key personnel to command staff positions, including the promotion of then-Lieutenant Richard Williams to commander of the Education, Training, and Recruitment Division, and the promotion of then-Commander Rannie Mushatt to Deputy Superintendent of the Investigations and Support Bureau, which oversees major criminal investigations such as those handled by the Special Victims Section. In his continuing effort to strengthen and rebuild the Department, Superintendent Harrison also announced morale-boosting initiatives including payment of the NOPD officer uniform allowance and a new incentive referral program through which employees can receive $1,000 payments for recruiting officers who transfer from other
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 3 of 23
agencies. In August 2014 alone, Superintendent Harrison, along with Mayor Landrieu and several other City leaders, visited 20 faith-based organizations across the city to encourage more residents to consider a career in policing. Compliance Bureau
The Compliance Bureau was created in direct response to the dictates of the Consent Decree, which required the City and the NOPD to create an “Implementation Unit” to serve as a liaison among the Court, the City, and Monitor, coordinating compliance and implementation actions and facilitating the sharing of data, documents, materials and access among the various personnel and parties. As a result of Department reorganization, the Compliance Bureau encompasses the Policy Standards, Training Standards, Compliance Standards, Performance Standards, and Information Systems sections.
As the City’s Initial Status Report pointed out, the Compliance Bureau was fully staffed by July 2014, including an implementation team of five Compliance Managers working under Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg. During the past six months, the Compliance Bureau also welcomed the addition of Captain Heather Kouts and Commander John Thomas, who replaced former Commander Chris Lea following his retirement. Led by these veteran police officers, the Implementation Unit embarked on a Department-wide campaign to raise awareness about the Consent Decree, the Monitor, and their requirements. Compliance Managers gave brief educational presentations to Command staff at COMSTAT meetings in all eight Districts. The Implementation Unit also revamped NOPD’s Web site to make information more easily accessible to the public, including links to the Monitor’s web site and the Consent Decree itself as well as posting NOPD’s Policy Manual.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 4 of 23
Because the Implementation Team’s five Compliance Managers were hired in May and June 2014, the past 6 months is the first reporting period during which they were actively involved in achieving targeted goals delineated within the Consent Decree. The Compliance Managers have reported significant progress in various areas outlined below in this report. Significantly, Compliance Managers have been able to engage directly with the Monitoring Team to address their concerns and fulfill their requests. For example, Compliance Managers collected and provided to the Monitors two years of disciplinary data (including the names of accused employees, charges, and penalties or other outcomes), three months’ worth of misconduct investigation case files, including audio files from investigators’ interviews (and staff are collecting an additional three months’ worth as requested), analysis of random samplings of body-worn camera use and in-car camera functionality, data on reported sex-crimes dispatch signals; three months’ worth of traffic detail data, community engagement files for numerous meetings in all eight Districts, and data from field interview cards. Compliance Managers have been, and are currently, directly involved in the revision of key NOPD policies, in consultation with the Monitors and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Compliance Managers have worked diligently with the NOPD Municipal Training Academy to enhance recruit and officer training lesson plans and curriculum, update existing teaching materials and develop new curriculum with the assistance of outside subject matter experts in criminal law, domestic violence and sexual assault. To that end, to preserve the academy’s updated teaching materials and ensure that all officers are consistently reviewing NOPD policies, both new and old, an RFP was developed to implement an electronic storage and management platform for all NOPD policies and correlated officer training and to track completion of testing on NOPD policies and training by all officers. Additionally, the
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 5 of 23
Compliance Managers coordinated communications and meetings among the Monitor, DOJ, the Court and various supervisors within NOPD. For example, the Compliance Managers are continually working with each District to facilitate weekly records-review requests from the monitoring team, ensuring that paperwork is available for routine inspection in an organized fashion. Although members of the monitoring team often interact directly with NOPD supervisors to obtain information, through informal requests, observation and “briefings,” the Compliance Managers serve as the primary point of contact for the monitoring team’s inquiries. When the monitoring team uses the Compliance Managers for access to records, research, data and other information, communication among all the parties is improved. The Compliance Bureau is dedicated to coordinating and facilitating the monitoring team’s inquiries and providing requested information on a timely basis without duplication of effort.
Although the City fully expects the Monitor to use its Quarterly Report to critique the NOPD’s operations, several of the Monitor’s reports have contained information that is misleading or not entirely accurate, analysis that is skewed or perfunctory, and criticism that appears designed to provoke negative public opinion rather than address real problems. The City and NOPD welcome constructive criticism and expect that increased communication among the Court, the City, DOJ and the Monitor will resolve these issues. Policies
The initial process used by NOPD to draft policies prior to the reporting time period was described in the City’s first Status Report.1 However, during the current reporting period, the Department has significantly improved its policy writing process. The Compliance Bureau has undertaken a comprehensive revision of NOPD policies through a systemic approach, utilizing subject-matter experts and other departmental personnel as needed. Further, the policies
1 See R. Doc. 376, p. 6.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 6 of 23
submitted for approval incorporate not only the Consent Decree mandates, but also model policies from other police departments around the country, including those that have already been subject to a consent decree and approval by the DOJ and the Court.
During this year, NOPD submitted more than sixty (60) policies and procedures to the Monitor and, based on the Monitor’s comments and suggestions, most have not required major revisions. At times, however, the Monitor appears to interpret honest intellectual and wellfounded disagreement over substantive policy issues as a recalcitrant resistance to reform, which could not be further from the truth. Additionally, the NOPD, DOJ, and Monitor have all expressed concerns about the revision process, which has been slow, inadequately structured and at times confusing, due in large part to (1) the number of entities that must review and provide comments to all policy revisions and (2) the absence of a consistent and agreed upon process by which all the involved reviewing entities shared comments and input.
Nonetheless, NOPD has made steady progress in the revision of its policies by working collaboratively with DOJ and the Monitor, and the parties appear to have established a process that will promote a more efficient exchange of information. On November 4-5, 2014, key NOPD personnel met with the Monitor and DOJ officials to discuss policies in a face-to-face meeting. As a result of this in-person meeting, NOPD and DOJ reached agreement in principle on three policies: Use of Force, Employee Misconduct Complaints and Internal Disciplinary Investigations, and Non-Disciplinary Counseling and Remedial Training for Minor Violations/Infractions. The first two of these are considered foundational policies that will dictate many aspects of subsidiary policies; DOJ has deemed them “trunk” policies from which other “branch” policies will follow.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 7 of 23
During that November 4, 2014 meeting, DOJ officials further informed NOPD that they prefer NOPD policies to follow the “Chapter” format (which the Department previously used at the time of the DOJ findings letter), and NOPD agreed to make the reformatting part of its comprehensive revision, which will eradicate the need for separate policies and procedures. Although the City and NOPD welcome this change, it represents another challenge to policy revision that may extend the process. The City recognizes that the implementation of these reforms will take time. However, any suggestions by the Monitor that NOPD is slowing that process, intentionally or unintentionally, are unwarranted. As stated, the NOPD is committed to drafting and implementing policies that not only comport to the Consent Decree, but to the highest standards of constitutional policing.
In the past month, the NOPD and the DOJ have tentatively come to agreement on several additional policies: Canines, Vehicle Pursuits, Domestic Violence, and In-Car Cameras. NOPD anticipates the impending approval of these and several other subsidiary policies within the next six months. The City looks forward to increasing progress in this area and increased cooperation among NOPD, DOJ and the Monitor to achieve that goal. Special Victims Section
The NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) collaborated with the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) for several months to probe the actions of five detectives within the Special Victims Section (SVS) who allegedly failed to provide documentation of their investigations or provided questionable documentation. In cases involving child abuse allegations, PIB immediately followed up on each case to ensure that the children were in a safe environment. All five detectives were reassigned—transferred out of the SVS—and systems of accountability were installed at every level to ensure that moving forward, the lack of performance by the
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 8 of 23
detectives and their supervisors will not re-occur. To ensure that each SVS case is investigated properly, Superintendent Harrison appointed a special task force, led by Commander Paul Noel, to conduct a comprehensive review of all investigations handled by the five identified detectives during their assignment in the section.
Superintendent Harrison replaced leadership at every level over SVS with the appointments of Deputy Superintendent Mushatt over the Investigations and Support Bureau, Commander Daryl Albert over the Criminal Investigations Division and Commander Gervais Allison over the Special Victims Section. Other systematic reforms Superintendent Harrison implemented include a requirement that detectives use a new standardized investigative checklist as part of their investigations which requires supervisor verification that the work is properly being performed, and an officer recently was transferred to Central Property & Evidence and tasked with the sole responsibility of coordinating the processing of sexual assault kits to the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab for DNA testing. The SVS commander and supervisors are required to attend all district attorney sex crimes charge conferences and new protocols are in place to enable NOPD to connect victims with community service providers, including the New Orleans Family Justice Center and the Metropolitan Center for Women and Children.
PIB launched a formal investigation on each of the five detectives outlined in the Inspector General’s report. If the allegations prove to be true, Superintendent Harrison will pursue immediate disciplinary action.
In the Third 2014 Quarterly Report, the Monitor stated that changes in leadership in the Sex Crimes Unit during the past fourteen months suggests a lack of focus and commitment to policing free of gender bias. On the contrary, the City’s recent and immediate actions in creating a task force to investigate sex crimes in the wake of the OIG’s report is demonstrative of the
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 9 of 23
City’s heightened focus and commitment to this critical issue that demands skilled and thorough policing. Supervision
The NOPD has worked diligently to address the issues raised by the Monitor related to providing “close and effective supervision.” On December 5, 2014, the Department released new, reformatted and refurbished Daily Activity Reports for officers and supervisors that capture the use of body-worn and in-car cameras, documents malfunctioning equipment, and in the case of supervisors, documents supervisory activities such as mandated orders, counseling, redirection, and support provided, and malfunctioning equipment reported by officers under their command. The Department is currently standardizing additional baseline documentation to facilitate data collection and reporting. This standardization will facilitate the Monitor’s review of documentation for photographic lineups, custodial interrogations, and supervisors’ review of body-worn and in-car camera use.
The Monitor’s Third 2014 Quarterly Report includes a number of statements asserting that there is a lack of supervision in the Department. The basis for many of these assertions is the lack of documentation demonstrating that supervisors have reviewed certain officers’ actions. The lack of documentation should not be construed as a lack of supervision, and the Department is confident that revised reporting forms will assist in conveying to the Monitor that supervisors are closely and effectively supervising their subordinates.
Following an open national competition to obtain a vendor to implement the Early Warning System (EWS), the City selected a company that will assist NOPD in designing and implementing an EWS. The selected vendor has experience implementing Early Warning Systems in other jurisdictions under a consent decree, including the Los Angeles Police
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 10 of 23
Department and the Oakland Police Department. The City has negotiated a thorough scope of work with this vendor, as well as a detailed pricing schedule that ties payment to performance and provides opportunities for a comprehensive review of all deliverables. Project implementation is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2015. The EWS will assist supervisors in identifying issues that need to be addressed with subordinates through counseling, training, and/or discipline.
The Department has worked diligently to correct deficiencies in the functionality of the in-car cameras documented in the Monitor’s Second and Third Quarterly Reports of 2014. First, the Department is in the process of upgrading the District servers, which were continually failing and causing cascading failure throughout the system. The new servers will be equipped with the latest software, increasing the efficiency of the data storage as well as improving the user experience.
Second, in an effort to make the entire in-car camera reporting process more efficient, the Department is working on an online reporting database to track the status of its in-car cameras on a regular basis. As a result, the Department has identified the remaining cars that are required to have a camera by August 2015 in accordance with the Consent Decree. Third, the Department has strengthened the reporting process from officers to their supervisors to the In-Car Camera Unit to ensure that non-functioning cameras are promptly repaired or replaced through the revised daily activity reports.
NOPD also has addressed supervisor training. All supervisors received 40 hours of inservice training in 2014 and, moving forward into January 2015, the Training Academy will enhance that in-service training by supplementing the set courses with additional supervisorspecific training courses with a focus on officer oversight, management skills and NOPD policy
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 11 of 23
and legal updates. Further, as noted by the Monitor, the Consent Decree does not require Body Worn Cameras (“BWC’s”), but the City proactively purchased and began utilizing BWC’s well in advance of the recent initiative by the federal government to provide such technology to police departments around the country. The City recognizes the importance of the use of such technology and will continue its work to train officers on the proper and effective use of BWC’s. Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD has assembled a Crisis intervention Team (CIT) Planning Committee composed of representatives from NOPD command leadership, City-contracted mental health professionals, civilian leadership of the NOPD Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit, local municipal government, the New Orleans Metropolitan Human Services District, community mental health professionals, professionals from emergency health care receiving facilities, members of the local judiciary, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office, a homeless service agency, and mental health professionals and advocates. The Planning Committee will have its first general meeting on January 13, 2015 and will focus on developing the CIT policy and training curriculum as well as other matters integral to the program.
Leading up to the formation of the CIT Planning Committee, NOPD met with local mental health experts and a national CIT expert, Dr. Randolph Dupont, to discuss the development of NOPD’s CIT program. In the process, NOPD obtained model policies and other resources that will facilitate the overall development of the program.
The Monitor stated that the Department lacked commitment to the CIT requirements, but the City is committed to ensuring that incidents involving mentally ill individuals are handled appropriately.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 12 of 23
Use of Force The Force Investigation Team (FIT) established by the NOPD continues to investigate all
serious use of force events and use of force events in which criminal conduct by an officer may be indicated. From January 2014 through the end of November 2014, more than 370 use of force events were reported to FIT using a single, uniform reporting system in accordance with Consent Decree Paragraph 76.2 Approximately half of those reports occurred during the latter half of the year. NOPD is in the process of analyzing the year’s force data to determine significant trends, and identify and remedy deficiencies; a report of this analysis will be published and made available publicly after year’s end. This report will detail those events that resulted in misconduct investigations, including allegations of criminal conduct. Data from the report also will be integrated into the EWS. NOPD recognizes that thorough review and, where appropriate, investigation of officers’ use of force is among the most important tasks of the Public Integrity Bureau and a foundational element of the public’s trust.
During the reporting period, FIT discovered several deficiencies in the use of force reporting process, and NOPD has taken several steps to address those issues. These deficiencies, some of which were identified in the Monitor’s Third 2014 Quarterly Report, include supervisors’ failure to photograph subjects, interview additional witnesses, and obtain statements from officers present during the use of force event. Supervisors also failed to properly document their review of evidence such as body-worn camera footage. It should be noted that these deficiencies are not present in the majority of use of force reports and generally occurred in less serious cases; all serious use of force events are investigated thoroughly by FIT. NOPD has ordered increased training on use of force reporting for all supervisors, and one of FIT’s sergeants is providing additional training during supervisor in-service training. FIT also hired an
2 Consent Decree Paragraph 76 addresses Use of Force policy, reporting and delineates 4 levels of Use of Force.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 13 of 23
additional sergeant to review all use of force reports to identify deficiencies upon receipt by FIT. Incomplete reports are now returned to the supervisors who drafted them for correction and, if necessary, additional investigation. Supervisors who repeatedly conduct deficient use of force investigations are subject to discipline.
The City disagrees with the Monitor’s suggestion in its Third 2014 Quarterly Report that reporting deficiencies indicate NOPD “may be tolerating higher than necessary levels of force.” Notably, the Monitor provided no quantifiable evidence to support this statement. Higher than necessary levels of force, when used, are investigated for potential misconduct and criminal conduct where indicated. Any reporting deficiencies identified do not equate to tolerance, and NOPD remains committed to a policy of officers using only the force necessary and appropriate in each incident. Photographic Lineups
NOPD is conducting effective photographic line-ups in accord with the U.S. Constitution, Louisiana law, the Consent Decree, and NOPD policy. Department policy dictates that officers who are involved in an investigation do not participate in the administration of these lineups, and those officers who administer the lineups have no knowledge of the suspect in the investigation. Although NOPD has long followed these practices, they were not explicitly stated in the forms used during lineup administration. In response to the monitoring team’s suggestion, NOPD revised those forms to clarify that all requirements of the Consent Decree are met. For example, the Eyewitness Identification Form now contains a statement, signed by the officer administering the lineup, that he/she is not involved in the investigation and has no knowledge as to which photographs depicts the suspect in the case for which the lineup is administered. This form was adopted by the Investigations Support Bureau’s Homicide Section, reviewed for use by the Field
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 14 of 23
Operations Bureau, and distributed throughout the Department. It was approved by the Monitor as demonstrating compliance with the Consent Decree.
The Monitor’s Third 2014 Quarterly Report finds NOPD did not demonstrate full compliance with lineup requirements because the Department was “unable to produce complete records” for the monitoring team’s review. In addition to adopting the revised Eyewitness Identification Form and Individual Photo Sequence Form in September 2014, NOPD created new spreadsheets for use throughout the Department that should obviate all the Monitor’s concerns regarding record-keeping for photographic lineups. NOPD is confident that its widespread adoption of the forms and spreadsheet will lead to compliance with all photographic lineup requirements in the Monitor’s forthcoming quarterly reports. Custodial Interrogations
NOPD is conducting effective custodial interrogations in accord with the U.S. Constitution, Louisiana law, the Consent Decree, and NOPD policy. Although NOPD has long followed legal practices in conducting custodial interrogations, the Monitor’s Third 2014 Quarterly Report states that NOPD did not demonstrate full compliance with the record keeping surrounding the conducting of Custodial Interrogations because the Department was “unable to produce complete records” for the monitoring team’s review. NOPD created new spreadsheets for use throughout the Department that should obviate all the Monitor’s concerns regarding record-keeping for custodial interrogations. NOPD is confident that its widespread adoption of the forms and spreadsheets will lead to compliance with all Custodial Interrogation Log requirements in the Monitor’s forthcoming quarterly reports.
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 15 of 23
Training and Personnel Development Over the past six months, NOPD has made great progress in revitalizing and revamping
its process of training and personnel development. The Department made key changes in its leadership in this area, hiring a new Curriculum Director in August 2014 and promoting a Lieutenant serving in the Public Integrity Bureau to Commander of the Education, Training, and Recruitment Division in October 2014. Lesson plans and all Power Point presentations used in training and education are in the process of being updated to reflect Consent Decree requirements as to adult learning techniques, fact-based scenarios and simulations to enhance recruit and patrol officer and supervisor in-service training. Online training is utilized in certain situations when it is appropriate in light of existing staffing shortages. With an increased emphasis on record-keeping, NOPD is implementing a system of electronic storage for training records, completion certificates, and signatures of officers indicating completed review of policies and/or training. NOPD is completing an RFP for a new software platform to maintain and track training electronically.
Other key highlights in training during the reporting period include a complete overhaul of the recruit-based class, Legal Aspects, with new subject matter instructors as well as updated lesson plans and curriculum for Recruit Class No. 171. Class No. 172 will receive the same Legal Aspects training with updated lesson plans and legal updates reflected in the curriculum. At this time, an RFP is in the process of being prepared by the Academy to procure the services of a legal director who will oversee future Legal Aspects training and coordinate qualified instructors for the following recruit class, No. 173 and all future recruit Legal Aspects classes. Additionally, new instructors in the area of Domestic Violence have been identified and recruit and patrol officer and supervisor in-service domestic violence lesson plans and are in the process
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 16 of 23
of development, beginning with current recruit class No. 171. Both the field training officers program and the last two weeks of all in-service training in 2014 received the benefits of the new instructors and updated, interactive teaching materials on Domestic Violence, new laws and NOPD Domestic Violence policy, including the Blueprint for Safety, as discussed further below. Furthermore, NOPD will participate in additional Domestic Violence training provided by a Louisiana Attorney General (AG) federal grant. This AG-supported Domestic Violence training is scheduled to begin in late January 2015 and run through April 2015 with an emphasis on supervisory-level courses and one, two-day train-the-trainer session.
Further, Sexual Assault training took place November 17-19, 2014 and was conducted by the National Law Enforcement Training and Capacity Building Project. Approximately 20 NOPD officers attended the first two days, and NOPD’s Sex Crimes Unit had approximately five individuals attend the third day of train-the-trainer sessions. Training included the following areas: Sexual Assault Response, Investigation, Evidence Collection and Use, Sex Offenders, Detecting Deception, Interview Techniques, and Theme Development. Additionally, NOPD received a $1,000 technical assistance grant, which will be used to purchase a video camera to record instructional modules and a computer with a web camera to allow webinars to be developed in the future. Lastly, as body-worn cameras were assigned to NOPD officers, the Training Academy developed a lesson plan and curriculum for training on proper use of the cameras. Recently graduated Class No. 170 was the first class trained on body-worn cameras and training also occurred during patrol officer and supervisor in-service training. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
The NOPD revised and updated its complaint form and created informational materials, including brochures and placards, which describe the process of misconduct complaint intake,
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 17 of 23
investigation, and adjudication. In addition, NOPD sought bids from professional translation services to translate the forms and informational materials into Spanish and Vietnamese, in accordance with the Consent Decree. The NOPD’s Compliance Bureau also reached out for translation assistance to community organizations representing key segments of Hispanic and Vietnamese residents. Distribution of updated complaint forms was delayed in part because NOPD’s policy governing misconduct was in the process of revision during the reporting period, and revisions suggested by the DOJ required the use of one form for reporting misconduct complaints as well as minor violations or infractions, both by civilians and supervisors. These revisions may require further changes to the complaint form. However, copies of the updated form have been distributed to all District stations and are also available at NOPD Headquarters and City Hall. Brochures and placards are also being distributed to each District and will be posted or available prior to 2015. The City and NOPD will continue to distribute the forms and related materials in accord with the Consent Decree. Likewise, the City and NOPD will ensure that the forms and materials are available in Spanish and Vietnamese as soon as the documents are translated and reviewed for accuracy. Residents may also fill out an online form via the NOPD’s web site to submit a misconduct complaint. Secondary Employment
The Office of Police Secondary Employment remains compliant with the vast majority of secondary employment requirements and is currently focusing on incorporating task-based details, such as traffic escorts and second lines, into its operations. The Office of Police Secondary Employment will publish an annual report in the coming months as required by the Consent Decree.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 18 of 23
Policing Free of Gender Bias NOPD submitted an improved Domestic Violence Policy for review by the Monitor and
DOJ. The City and NOPD collaborated with DOJ’s Office of Violence Against Women to craft a policy that incorporates the Blueprint for Safety, a best-practice, interagency approach to domestic violence.
NOPD is working toward creating a best-practice Sexual Assault policy that addresses all Consent Decree requirements. The Sexual Assault Task Force’s review of the cases mentioned in the OIG’s recent report will help shape this policy. This policy will require increased oversight and proper documentation of Sexual Assault investigations. NOPD’s Sex Crimes leadership and detectives attended two best-practice trainings, one hosted by the aforementioned National Law Enforcement Training and Capacity Building Project and another entitled the New Orleans Sexual Assault Best Practices Conference, in the last quarter of the year. Information from these trainings will be incorporated into policy and future training.
NOPD continues to participate in the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) general meetings and open-case review. Community Engagement
In accordance with Paragraph 229 of the Consent Decree,3 NOPD has incorporated data regarding crime trends, trends in misconduct complaints, and community priorities into COMSTAT meetings. COMSTAT utilizes spatial mapping and scientific deployment to fuel problem-solving policing efforts. Specifically, NOPD utilizes a Corona deployment application and DDACTS (Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety) maps to assess its staffing allocation and personnel deployment.
3 Consent Decree Paragraph 229 delineates specific measures to reconstitute NOPD’s COMSTAT meetings.
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 19 of 23
Each District has a Community Coordinating (CoCo) sergeant and Quality of Life officer who engage in problem identification and solving activities with community members. The CoCo sergeants and Quality of Life officers attend community meetings throughout their Districts, in addition to attending weekly District COMSTAT and monthly New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council (NONPACC) meetings, to listen to and address community concerns.
NOPD is engaged in community policing activities throughout the city and working to build better mechanisms to track its community engagement efforts with a specific focus on measuring officer outreach and the effectiveness of its community partnerships. NOPD will launch these mechanisms in 2015 and report the results as required by the Consent Decree.
Finally, NOPD’s mission statement reflects its commitment to community-oriented policing and agrees to integrate community and problem-oriented policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems. Recruitment
NOPD has conducted affirmative outreach to a broad group of community members in its recruitment efforts. As noted in the Monitor’s Third Quarterly report of 2014, Mayor Landrieu, Superintendent Harrison, and several other city leaders visited 20 faith-based organizations across the city in August 2014 in an effort to recruit qualified candidates for the NOPD. This is the sort of affirmative community outreach activity that is contemplated by the Consent Decree. As the Monitor also noted, the City and the NOPD, in conjunction with NOPD and Justice Foundation (“NOPJF”), announced an expanded recruitment effort in July 2014 titled “Get Behind the Badge.” The program incorporates an online presence (www.joinnopd.org), digital
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 20 of 23
marketing, and the use of “job posting tactics” on career-based web sites. In addition to these efforts by Superintendent Harrison and Mayor Landrieu and the online push for recruitment, NOPD’s recruitment team continues to attend numerous recruiting events across the city with the goal of reaching out to a variety of potential recruits and bolstering NOPD's overall recruitment efforts.
NOPD established a standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists and trained all interview panelists on the system. Additionally, NOPD is in the process of finalizing multiple internal documents to demonstrate compliance with Consent Decree requirements. Finally, the entire NOPD recruitment team participated in an employment law training program presented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission specifically for NOPD.
Throughout the Monitor’s Third 2014 Quarterly Report, there are statements related to police Districts’ lack of preparedness for Monitor site visits, lack of documentation, and assignment of Field Operations Bureau District officers to a single supervisor. These statements are indicative of the staffing shortage the Department is experiencing, in some part, due to certain unintended consequences related to Consent Decree provisions. Nonetheless, the City is committed to aggressive recruitment efforts to ensure that an adequate number of officers are hired and that the Department is able to provide all documents to the Monitor to demonstrate the work that is being done by the Department. Transparency and Oversight
The Consent Decree and relevant reports are now publicly available at all police districts, police headquarters, and City Hall in the City Attorney’s Office. These documents are also widely accessible to the public via the Internet at public libraries. NOPD posted all of its current
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 21 of 23
policies on its web site. As revised policies are approved, they will be posted on the web site as well.
NOPD plans to host community meetings on Consent Decree progress in each District in early 2015. At these meetings, NOPD will provide summaries of all pertinent Consent Decree reports, inform the public of policy changes and other significant actions taken as a result of the Consent Decree, and address areas of community concern. At least one week before such meetings, NOPD will publicize the meetings to inform the public about these opportunities to discuss progress in the reformation of the Department.
Throughout the past six months, Compliance Managers have spent much time and effort coordinating within NOPD to provide the Monitors with requested documentation. The Compliance Managers will continue to do so going forward to provide the full transparency required for this process to succeed.
NOPD also continues to participate in the Police-Community Advisory Boards (PCABs) in each District. NOPD works collaboratively with PCABs to develop and implement public safety strategies that respect and reflect each community’s public safety priorities and concerns regarding particular police tactics. District PCABs are beginning to submit formal recommendations for changes of NOPD practice and NOPD will either adopt these recommendations or provide substantial explanation why they cannot be adopted. NOPD also continues to participate in the United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group, as documented in the Monitor’s quarterly reports.
The Monitor, DOJ, Court, and NOPD continue to work collaboratively to implement the requirements of the Consent Decree. The City and NOPD are encouraged by the progress made toward this goal and remain committed to continuing reforms to achieve full compliance.
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 22 of 23
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams CHRISTY HAROWSKI (LSB #30712) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHERRELL R. SIMMS, 28227 SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS (LSB#28809) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 shrwilliams@nola.gov Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 31st of December, 2014 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams Sharonda R. Williams
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 423 Filed 12/31/14 Page 23 of 23 23

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD,” the “Department”) since the entry of the Consent Decree, the City’s assessment of its progress, plans to correct any issues, and to respond to any concerns that have been raised by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (“OCMD,” the “Monitor”). Introduction Following the City’s second Status Report filed on December 31, 2014, this report is the City’s third biannual Status Report, covering the period from December 31, 2014, to July 1, 2015. During this six-month period, the Department has made significant progress in a variety of areas covered by the Consent Decree. At a time when the NOPD is enduring a severe officer staffing shortage, the Department is reforming itself, using technology and best practices to become more efficient, more effective, and more responsive to the community as well as the federal oversight represented by the OCDM. The systemic change envisioned by the Consent Decree cannot be completed in a matter of months, and the progress is ongoing. The Department

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 20
is committed to becoming a model law enforcement agency, and the progress it has made already demonstrates the strength of that commitment. The process of implementing the Consent Decree necessarily involves public comment and feedback from the Monitor. NOPD welcomes and values that feedback, which informs and guides its efforts and operations in implementing reforms. The Monitor’s feedback often focuses on discrete aspects of NOPD operations, which comprise multifarious services and programs, to the apparent exclusion of its accomplishments and success. Viewed broadly, the Department is improving itself and taking positive steps toward compliance, balancing the necessary requirements of day-to-day community policing with the overarching goal of implementing the Consent Decree.
As it continues to face and react to the challenges this goal entails, the NOPD’s essential mission remains unchanged. The Department continues to protect and to serve, and the City is proud of it officers’ performance. As the Monitor stated in its most recent Quarterly Report, the “majority of NOPD officers are caring, capable, conscientious men and women who work day in and day out to make the NOPD a better department and New Orleans a safer place to live . . . the dedication, passion, and effectiveness of so many of so many officers should not be ignored.” Compliance Bureau
The Compliance Bureau became fully staffed in July 2014 with a full complement of five Compliance Managers, followed by the addition of veteran officers Captain Heather Kouts and Commander John Thomas. Regrettably, Captain Kouts recently announced her retirement from the Department, which became effective at the end of June 2015. However, under the leadership of Deputy Superintendent Jay Ginsberg, the Compliance Bureau has pushed Department operations toward compliance with the targeted goals delineated in the Consent Decree. The Compliance Bureau continues to serve as the NOPD’s primary point of contact with the Monitor,
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 20
coordinating and facilitating inquiries and providing requested information from a variety of Department databases and sources such as Electronic Police Reports, ADP, and IAPro misconduct complaint files.
The Compliance Bureau compiled data, drafted and published ten different annual reports featuring data on uses of force, crisis intervention, stops and searches, bias-free policing, sexual assault, domestic violence, community engagement, recruitment, training, and misconduct complaints. The Compliance Bureau also collected and analyzed numerous “outcome measurements” that have been provided to the Monitor to conduct its own compliance review and assessment in accordance with the Consent Decree. In addition, the Compliance Bureau has routinely prepared reports for the Court on body-worn camera usage, in-car camera functionality, and the status of various other Department operations and compliance efforts.
The Compliance Bureau also has primary responsibility for the comprehensive revision of NOPD policies, in consultation with the Monitor and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). As described further below, at least 23 revised policies have been approved for training and implementation, and more than 12 additional revised policies have been submitted for approval. The Compliance Bureau anticipates all policies subject to review under the Consent Decree will be approved and become fully implemented before the end of this calendar year.
The Compliance Bureau has spearheaded the formation of the Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) Planning Committee, which is currently interviewing CIT officer candidates who will undergo training upon their selection. A full complement of 24 team members is anticipated to be selected this summer.
Additionally, the Compliance Bureau has developed or revised data-tracking systems to foster compliance with the Consent Decree, such as electronic forms to replace paper forms used
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 20
to report events such as uses of force and misconduct complaints. The Compliance Bureau created standardized logbooks to record custodial interrogations, and it has been conducting inspections of the logbooks to ensure accuracy; the Bureau also created a community engagement tracking system to record community engagement efforts in each District, as well as compliance logs focused on supervision that will enable supervisors to better record their activities such as reporting non-functioning equipment, reviewing video recordings, conducting disciplinary investigations, and reviewing uses of force. As the various Districts and Bureaus adopt and implement these forms and systems, the Compliance Bureau anticipates increased momentum toward compliance in the immediate future. Policies
NOPD has made considerable progress toward the comprehensive revision of its policies and procedures. Following a joint decision by the OCDM and the DOJ to implement a “chapter” format that NOPD previously used when accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement, the approval rate for proposed policies has increased dramatically. All of the former policies and procedures encompassed by the Use of Force section of the Consent Decree have been approved by the OCDM and the DOJ. Briefing and instructional material for these 14 interrelated Chapters are being developed and they are scheduled for imminent release.
In total, 23 Chapters have been revised and approved to date in the areas of use of force, searches, arrests, bias-free policing, misconduct complaint intake, domestic violence, and the use of cameras in policing. Along with the development of “best practices” regulations, all related paper forms and reports have been revised and, whenever possible, converted to an electronic format, some of which were integrated with automatic e-mail routing functions through chain of
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 20
command. These form revisions are expected to improve supervision, efficiency, and recordkeeping throughout the Department. Body-Worn Cameras and In-Car Cameras
Although the Consent Decree does not contain any references to body-worn cameras, the NOPD voluntarily chose to implement that new technology well before the national initiative to use body-worn cameras in law enforcement. This technology assists police officers while making the Department more transparent and improving supervision. The Department has had in-car cameras for several years, and the Consent Decree mandates their continued use and maintenance. Integration of this technology expectedly presents practical and technical issues that the Department aggressively continues to address. For example, the NOPD’s servers, which collect video data recorded by in-car cameras, were unable to upload data from newer-model cameras installed in the latest generation of police vehicles. Because body-worn cameras are new, the Department had to incorporate their use into daily police activity and train officers to correctly follow the policy that governs their use, which the Department is addressing through discipline and training.
The Department has procured body-worn cameras for all District platoon, general assignment, quality of life, and school resource officers. In addition, all officers including supervisors that are members of Mounted, SOD-Tactical, SOD-Traffic, and SOD K-9 units, as well as the Gang Task Force, have body-worn cameras. Finally, all current recruits have bodyworn cameras and the Department has procured additional cameras for all new and anticipated recruits for 2015.
The Department’s use of body-worn cameras has increased substantially since the previous December 2014 status report. Through inspections and internal reviews, the
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 20
Compliance Bureau has noticed a measurable increase in camera usage. In addition, the Department is in the final stages of adding an integration software to incorporate call-for-service data that will greatly facilitate the labelling and thus storage and access of videos, which will not only help investigators and reviewers, but also save officers time.
As mentioned in the previous biannual status report, the Department and the City are in the process of upgrading the District servers. The new servers will be equipped with the latest software, increasing the efficiency of data storage as well as improving ease of user access and operation. The City has procured the servers and the main server node and is in the process of installing the software. Once the software is installed, the new system can be initialized and the old system replaced. The new system should be operational this summer. In addition, the Department released its revised in-car camera regulation in March and is working to ensure its full and complete adoption. Use of Force
All of the former policies and procedures encompassed by the Use of Force section of the Consent Decree have been approved by the OCDM and the DOJ, including Chapter 1.3—Use of Force; Chapter 1.3.1.1—Handcuffing and Restraint Devices; Chapter 1.3.1.2—Control Devices and Techniques; Chapter 1.3.2—Force Investigation Team; Chapter 1.3.6—Reporting Use of Force; Chapter 1.3.7—Use of Force Review Board; Chapter 1.4—Firearms Authorized; Chapter 1.4.1—Authorized Ammunition; Chapter 1.4.2—Firearms Training, Qualification, and Requalification; Chapter 4.5—Vehicle Pursuits; and Chapter 41.22—Canines. Because these Chapters are interrelated, they will be implemented simultaneously to provide comprehensive, best-practices training to newly hired officers as well as in-service training to update veteran officers. In general, the Use of Force policies instruct officers to use the minimum amount of
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 20
force that is necessary to effectively bring an incident or person under control, while protecting the lives of officers and civilians. The policies implement a “Use of Force Continuum” that dictates levels of force that correspond to levels of resistance, and it delineates actions that are strictly prohibited. The policies provide clear rules that dictate the appropriate level of force for every policing situation. Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD has met numerous times with the Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) Planning Committee to develop the new CIT program. The CIT Planning Committee is composed of representatives from NOPD command leadership, City-contracted mental health professionals, civilian leadership of the NOPD Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit, local municipal government, the New Orleans Metropolitan Human Services District, community mental health professionals, professionals from emergency health care receiving facilities, members of the local judiciary, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office, a homeless service agency, and mental health professionals and advocates and policy and training subcommittees to push the program forward. The Planning Committee formed Policy and Training Subcommittees to focus on pushing those aspects of the CIT program forward.
With the help of the CIT Planning Committee and the Policy Subcommittee, NOPD submitted its crisis intervention policy to OCDM and the Department of Justice in June 2015, and the Department is preparing to roll out the Crisis Intervention Team program. NOPD trainers and community mental-health experts participated in a train-the-trainer hosted by clinical psychologist and professor Dr. Randy Dupont and his team of CIT experts from Memphis, Tennessee. NOPD has outlined the curriculum for the 40-hour CIT program and is developing lesson plans and presentations currently. NOPD is currently in the process of selecting CIT
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 20
officer candidates who will participate in the first 40-hour CIT training in the second half of this year. Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups
NOPD has made significant progress regarding documentation of custodial interrogations and photographic lineups, and the Department is in the process of installing new equipment to record all custodial interrogations in accordance with the Consent Decree. The Department released new standardized logbooks for both areas on January 1, 2015 for the entire Department. To ensure compliance, the Compliance Bureau has been conducting inspections of the logbooks to ensure the logbooks are filled out completely, accurately, and in accordance with regulation and the Consent Decree. NOPD’s use of the logbooks has increased substantially, which will assist the Department in demonstrating compliance. Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
NOPD implemented its new domestic violence policy on April 5, 2015. The Department has enhanced its training to mirror the new policy and provided a webinar to command staff to educate leadership on the new policy. NOPD is in the process of improving data collection for domestic violence cases by adding domestic violence-specific fields to the electronic reporting system.
In addition, NOPD is preparing to submit the Sexual Assault Chapter and Sex Crimes Unit Operating Guidelines to OCDM and the DOJ later this month (July 2015). NOPD collaborated with the Mayor’s Task Force on Sexual Assault and community advocates to develop the policies. In conjunction, NOPD has worked with local experts to overhaul Department-wide sexual assault training.
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 9 of 20
NOPD has also implemented numerous measures to provide greater accountability and oversight for the Special Victims Section. The Department has improved its sexual assault kit and overall case tracking and has adopted an investigation check sheet to ensure thorough investigations and documentation of supervision.
NOPD has increased the number of signal codes used for sexual assault to allow for more accurate classification of sexual assault offenses. NOPD has established specific signal codes for “sexting,” i.e. sending sexually oriented text messages, video voyeurism, registration of sex offenders, and child-predator checks. In addition, NOPD provided additional guidance on the restrictions for using a signal 21 (miscellaneous code) for any sexual offense. Lastly, NOPD established a specific signal for unreported sexual assault kits to separately track those kits. Community Engagement
NOPD implemented a new community engagement tracking system on January 1, 2015 to collect additional information on community engagement efforts. The tracking system records the activities of Community Coordinating Sergeants, Quality of Life Officers, and School Resource Officers, and it provides greater oversight and accountability for NOPD’s community engagement. The system will allow NOPD to analyze the scope and effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and adjust outreach accordingly. Recruitment
NOPD continues to focus on recruiting efforts to bolster the Department and has ramped up advertising to attract applications. NOPD submitted its revised recruitment plan to address the comments in the Monitor’s second quarterly report. The Department has publicly identified its recruitment unit on the City’s Web site, www.nola.gov, as required by the Consent Decree.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 10 of 20
Lastly, NOPD has established a new standardized scoring system to be used by interview panelists and trained all interview panelists on the system. Academy and In-Service Training
The Department has made distinct improvements in the areas of training and education. In addition to other major investments in the Department’s infrastructure and equipment, the NOPD’s Education and Training Academy has moved into the University of New Orleans’ (UNO) Lindy Boggs Center for the next 24 months while the existing Academy building on Paris Avenue undergoes renovations into a state-of-the-art academic institution. The facilities provided by UNO are technologically advanced and spacious. Both recruits and officers will receive not only training in top-notch training facilities, but updated, best-practices instruction.
NOPD has continued its focus on the development of high-quality, best-practices lesson plans, and ensuring that these training materials that are developed by all instructors, both NOPD and external subject-matter experts, meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. To ensure this high-quality instruction, the Training Academy’s curriculum development team developed a “Lesson Plan Accountability Matrix” to track the stages of the Training Academy’s curriculum, inventory of lesson plans and instructors. The spreadsheet aligns the assignment, accountability, and status of lesson plans towards final review and concurrence under the Consent Decree guidelines, utilizing a standardized academy lesson plan template for all lesson plans.
As certain trainings have been approved by OCDM and DOJ, newly developed and updated lesson plans and correlating teaching materials have been implemented and are taught to recruits, patrol officers and supervisors by subject-matter experts in sexual assault, domestic violence, legal updates and legal aspects. All of these training areas meet Consent Decree guidelines as per content as well as instructor qualifications. Instructor qualifications have also
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 11 of 20
been evaluated, and more than 35 adjunct instructors recently have been certified as instructors through attendance at the FBI’s Law Enforcement Instructor School. Further, NOPD officers have excellent training opportunities for the near future, including, but not limited to, additional outside training in sexual assault, domestic violence, and bias-free policing, by national experts who specifically have chosen to work with NOPD in furtherance of educating the Department in these critical subject-matter areas.
Inasmuch as implementation of Consent Decree-compliant training is critical to the NOPD and the Training Academy, the training and education chapters applicable to Academy administration and its curriculum are vital and were recently updated and converted into chapter format with updated procedures and input from the Training Academy. These training and education chapters were submitted to OCDM and DOJ in late June for their collective review. These chapters were revised in line with best practices, the Consent Decree, and existing NOPD policies.
To ensure that recruits and officers are receiving training on revised chapters and that all training is taking place on a timely basis, NOPD recently procured the services of PowerDMS, a record-keeping software platform that keeps track of all policies and all training on those policies, provides a record of training as it occurs and, conversely, provides notifications when mandated training has not taken place. PowerDMS also records and tracks all commendations and corrective actions taken, and it allows each trainee to provide an electronic signature verifying that training has been completed.
Moving forward, recruit classes and commissioned officers are greatly benefitting from NOPD’s commitment to providing enhanced, best-practices training and education in line with
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 12 of 20
the Consent Decree; high-quality instructors; excellent training facilities; and the technology necessary to maintain this high level of commitment at a sustainable pace. Officer Assistance and Support
The Department has made considerable progress on its officer assistance and support program. From January 2015 through April 2015, the Department worked with the Department of Civil Service to create a position to lead the program and identify potential candidates. In April 2015, the Department hired a licensed clinical social worker to be director of the Officer Assistance Program. The program is designed to promote mental health wellness for all employees and their families through direct intervention. All employees will have immediate access to confidential mental health services. The program offers individual, couple, and family counseling, as well as referrals to external agencies when appropriate.
The Officer Assistance Program director is also providing training to officers and supervisors on how to utilize officer assistance as well as providing training related to mental health stressors in law enforcement. In addition, she is working with the Department to develop a new, comprehensive peer intervention program. Finally, the Department is working on finalizing other details related to the program such as finalizing its policies. Performance Evaluations
As a result of the Great Place to Work Initiative, the Department was able to revise its performance evaluation in accordance with the Consent Decree. The Department worked with the Monitor and industry human-resource experts to create a new evaluation that captures the requirements of the Consent Decree and ensures that complete, thorough, and useful evaluations
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 13 of 20
are conducted on each employee.1 These new evaluations were used by the entire Department. The evaluations were done in conjunction with the required Civil Service evaluation in order to beta-test the new evaluation before the new process replaces the Civil Service evaluation in 2016. The Compliance Bureau is working to improve the performance evaluations for 2016 based on feedback received after the new evaluations were completed. Finally, in order to properly prepare supervisors on the performance evaluation, the Compliance Bureau worked with an industry expert, the vice president of human resources at Audubon Institute, to create and deliver training on effective performance evaluations and the new performance evaluation process. The training was recorded as a webinar and made available to the entire Department as well as required by all supervisors conducting evaluations. Since that training, lesson plans have been developed for “new” supervisor training based on the training delivered. Supervision
The Department understands and takes very seriously the important and critical role of supervisors in achieving reform. For that reason, the Department has undertaken many different efforts to provide the necessary support and infrastructure to ensure quality supervision. In particular, the Department released revised daily activity reports for officers and supervisors. The new daily activity reports strengthen officers’ use of body-worn and in-car cameras and reporting of non-functioning or malfunctioning equipment. The supervisor’s daily activity report includes not only the changes mentioned above, but also provides the ability for supervisors to report on their supervisory functions such as providing counseling, redirection, or support; responding to misconduct; conveying orders to officers; and more. The Department is also exploring converting this to an electronic reporting process.
1 It has come to the Department’s attention that one performance evaluation requirement related to supervisor’s response to misconduct is listed outside of the performance evaluation section. This requirement will be addressed prior to the 2016 evaluations.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 14 of 20
In addition, the Department has standardized and released compliance logs in addition to the custodial interrogation and photographic lineup logbooks mentioned above. These compliance logs are focused on supervision such as reporting non-functioning or malfunctioning equipment, reviewing video recordings, conducting disciplinary investigations, or reviewing uses of force. The Compliance Bureau has been working collaboratively with all of the Districts to ensure these logbooks are fully utilized.
The Department also has conducted an initial workload assessment of supervisors with the understanding that in order to ensure quality supervision, the Department needs to optimize supervisors’ time. As such, the Department is piloting a program to reduce the time burden on scheduling and payroll related tasks. The Department is also reviewing how data processes can be streamlined or optimized, especially for use in the potential development of electronic daily activity reports. The Department is reviewing the other findings from the workload assessment and developing strategies to address other inefficiencies as they are identified. Finally, the Department is in the process of hiring a management consulting firm to analyze NOPD’s workload and staffing deployment, as well as to make recommendations on more efficient organizational practices and processes.
The above-mentioned assessment and improvements are based on the Department’s recognition that supervisors are “overburdened with non-supervisory responsibilities that consume time that would be more effectively devoted to supervision,” as the Monitor observed in a recent report on the Department’s supervision practices and policies. In addition, NOPD has developed and continues to develop additional supervisory training as well as form reporting requirements. Improved record-keeping is one of the NOPD’s primary goals through this process. NOPD agrees with the Monitor’s assessment that adequate documentation is integral to
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 15 of 20
effective supervision; proper record-keeping allows for continuous review and accountability throughout the chain of command. However, as the City pointed out in its previous biannual report, the absence of documentation does not necessarily equate to an absence of supervision. Members of the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor have personally witnessed and reported on actions by police officers that demonstrated close and effective supervision that were not properly documented. For example, one former police chief stated that he watched a supervisor giving instruction to a subordinate during roll call, but that instruction was not documented. The Department strives to document these “undocumented” instances of supervision, not only to demonstrate compliance, but to enhance supervision throughout the chain of command. Early Warning System
In January, the City signed a contract with a technology vendor, Sierra-Cedar, to deliver an Early Intervention System for the City and the Department. The work began in earnest shortly thereafter with high-level roadmap and discovery workshops featuring all responsible parties. Over the spring, the project featured a series of workshops on a variety of topics ranging from learning more about specific data sources such as IAPro2 to the information security needs of the project. These workshops are intended to ensure the development of the project is done correctly with regard to functionality; hardware/architecture; source systems; and implementation, as well as ensuring that the solution is synchronized to the unique operations of the NOPD. Each meeting includes Department and City subject-matter experts relative to the specific workshop subject to ensure requirements are accurate from a 360-degree viewpoint. These workshops are leading to the development of the FastStart pilot, which is intended to
2 IAPro is a database used by the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau to track misconduct complaints, uses of force, and other critical data.
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 16 of 20
provide the Department with a working prototype from which the final product can be developed.
Finally, these workshops provided key information to the System Design Document, an essential project deliverable that ensures the correct requirements are developed before moving forward. As part of that effort, Sierra-Cedar and the Department have finalized the initial early warning criteria, thresholds, event triggers, workflows, peer groups through these workshops, research into other early intervention implementations in the United States, and offline work.
To date, Sierra-Cedar has delivered several key project documents, including the Project Management Plan, the System Architecture Document, Gap Analysis, and the System Design document on schedule. Sierra-Cedar is also preparing its “Roadmap” deliverable based upon interviews and workshops. The “Roadmap” is intended to provide an environment scan of the City/NOPD; identify the future state vision of EWS implementation and support; and identify priorities, assess planning gaps, and provide recommendations. The City, the Department, and the Contractor have remained on the project timeline and within the project’s scope, and all parties are eager to see the project move forward. Secondary Employment
The Office of Police Secondary Employment remains compliant with the vast majority of secondary employment requirements and is piloting a program to incorporate the assignment of traffic details into its operations. NOPD implemented an equitable, auditable assignment system for tail-car and scooter details that will be used until OPSE takes over assignment of all details. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjutication
As a result of discussions among the Compliance Bureau, the Public Integrity Bureau, the Department of Justice and OCDM representatives, NOPD completed an approved policy
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 17 of 20
governing misconduct complaint intake and investigation, Chapter 52.1.1, which replaces former Policy 1020. Like the policy governing use of force, this is a foundational policy that embodies core principles and best practices, and its implementation represents a significant step toward compliance with the Consent Decree. Following the chapter’s approval, NOPD designed a training plan to instruct personnel in advance of its effective date. Members of the Compliance Bureau developed a Power Point presentation that was delivered to Public Integrity Bureau personnel in early May, and PIB instructors recorded a webinar based on the presentation that will be disseminated to supervisors for mandatory review early this month. This training describes the main changes between former Policy 1020 and Chapter 52.1.1 and reviews procedures for non-disciplinary counseling and training pursuant to previously released Chapter 35.1.7. The new misconduct complaint policy, which will take effect in mid-July, is designed to make the process of lodging misconduct complaints easier and more accessible to the public. For example, members of the public will be able to make a complaint to any officer at any time, and complaint forms will be widely distributed and available in every police station, library, and other government facilities.
NOPD is contracting with a translation-services vendor to translate informational materials related to the process of filing a misconduct complaint into Spanish and Vietnamese. For example, informational posters that describe how to file a complaint have been translated into both languages and posted in police facilities as well as City libraries. The Department has submitted the complaint form and brochures for translation, and those materials also will be distributed to, and posted in, City and NOPD facilities.
In addition, the Compliance Bureau and the Public Integrity Bureau have drafted a comprehensive revision to Policy 1021, which governs the disciplinary process, created a
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 18 of 20
separate chapter detailing the responsibilities of misconduct investigators, and completed an overhaul of the penalty schedule that dictates the range of potential punishments for all misconduct offenses. The new disciplinary process, as proposed, would give accused employees the right to a predisposition conference during which they would have the opportunity to respond to misconduct allegations. The revised penalty “matrix” provides presumptive penalties for each offense within narrower ranges, and it establishes levels of offenses based on their severity. Collectively, these changes are designed to increase transparency and fairness throughout the disciplinary process. NOPD anticipates approval of these revised policies within the next quarter, with training and implementation to follow.
The Public Integrity Bureau recently sought approval for five additional civilian staff members from the Civil Service Commission, including two investigators and three intake assistants. Interviews for those positions are under way, and the Public Integrity Bureau anticipates filling all five positions within the next quarter. The additional staff is expected to greatly improve the intake process and enhance tracking of all misconduct data-tracking. Transparency and Oversight
The Consent Decree requires a variety of public reports that the Department must publish annually. In 2015, the Department released all of these reports for the first time on the Consent Decree page of the Department’s website, including annual reports on use of force, crisis intervention, stop and search data, bias-free policing, sexual assault, domestic violence, community engagement, recruitment, training, and the Public Integrity Bureau. NOPD is committed to making as much data and information available. The Department acknowledges that many of these reports represent a baseline to which future reports may compare, while also
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 19 of 20
acknowledging that as new regulations governing the Department change, so do the meaning and
interpretation of the underlying data.
The Consent Decree also requires the reporting of data through the outcome measures
listed in Paragraph 448. These include key indicators such as rate of force per arrest, canine bite
ratio, rate of force complaints, and the number of uses of force that were found to violate policy.
Although the Monitor has primary responsibility over these measures, the Department has been
working cooperatively to gather, compile, and, in some cases, conduct analysis on the data to
facilitate the provision of data to the Monitor. In addition, the Compliance Bureau worked
closely with the Monitor in operationalizing the definitions and developing methodologies to
analyze the data.
The Monitor, the Department of Justice, the Court, and NOPD continue to work
collaboratively to implement the requirements of the Consent Decree. The City and NOPD are
encouraged by the progress made toward this goal and remain committed to continuing reforms
to achieve full compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams CHRISTY HAROWSKI (LSB #30712) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHERRELL R. SIMMS, 28227 SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS (LSB#28809) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 shrwilliams@nola.gov
Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 443 Filed 07/01/15 Page 20 of 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this 1st of July, 2015 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Sharonda R. Williams Sharonda R. Williams
20

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 21
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor on the New Orleans Police Department’s Supervision Policies and Practices July 21, 2015
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 21 Page 2 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Table of Contents
I. Notes................................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 4 III. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 7
A. Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Recommendations................................................................................................................................... 7 C. NOPD’s Response..................................................................................................................................... 8 IV. Detailed Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 9 A. Supervision Generally ............................................................................................................................ 9 B. Ensuring that Supervision Enforces Policy..................................................................................10 C. The Importance of Documenting Supervision............................................................................12 D. Ensuring Supervisory Accountability. ...........................................................................................13 E. Supervisor Workload ...........................................................................................................................14 F. Supervisor Assignments (¶¶307-312)..........................................................................................17 G. Supervisor and Command-Level Training (¶¶314-315) .......................................................18 H. Additional Findings re Supervision ................................................................................................19 I. Recommendations.................................................................................................................................19
1. NOPD Should Ensure that the Consent Decree’s Supervisory Requirements Are Consistently Discharged. ....................................................................................................................... 19 2. NOPD Should Provide Newly Assigned Supervisors a List of the Consent Decree Requirements for Supervision, Custodial Interrogation, and Photographic Line-Ups and Ensure They Are Discharged. ...................................................................................................... 19 3. Track Consent Decree Compliance as Rigorously as COMSTAT Performance..... 20 4. Supervisors Should Meet Monthly to Evaluate and Improve Supervision. ........... 20 5. Assess and Right-Size Supervisory Workloads ................................................................ 20 J. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................21
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 21 Page 3 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com I. NOTES
“The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.” Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 21
Page 4 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. INTRODUCTION
Effective supervision is integral to achieving the lasting reform the Consent Decree prescribes. As the Consent Decree observes, “close and effective supervision” is “necessary for officers to improve and grow professionally, to police actively and effectively; and to identify, correct and prevent misconduct.” CD p. 77 (XV Supervision). Some reforms, such as revising policies, improving training, or adopting an Early Warning System, are unavoidably timeconsuming and their impact on the Department’s actual and perceived practices occurs much later. Effective supervision of officer compliance with current policies and Consent Decree requirements can, on the other hand, deliver meaningful, observable change almost immediately. Put another way, while some reforms called for in the Consent Decree involve time-consuming structural and systemic change, significant short-term progress can be made by ensuring NOPD members’ practices conform to current policies and applicable Consent Decree requirements. In this report we examine NOPD’s supervisory systems, practices, and performance as observed over the course of our monitoring.
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree enumerates the following elements of “close and effective supervision” for which NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable:
• Respond to the scene of certain arrests;
• Review each arrest report;
• Respond to the scene of uses of force;
• Investigate each use of force;
• Review accuracy and completeness of officers’ daily activity reports;
• Respond to each complaint of misconduct;
• Ensure that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust;
• Provide counseling redirection and support to officers.
The substance of these actions, however, are spread throughout the Consent Decree. For example, while paragraph 306 provides supervisors must respond to the scene of uses of force, what a supervisor is expected to do upon responding is articulated in Section III, Use Of Force, which provides that upon responding to the scene of a use of force, “a supervisor shall inspect and observe subjects for injury or complaints of pain resulting from the use of force, and immediately obtain any necessary medical care.” (CD ¶27)
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 5 of 21
Page 5 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Similarly, although the Supervision section does not specifically address a supervisor’s responsibilities with respect to search warrants, Section V, Stops, Searches and Arrests, provides supervisors must review search warrant applications “for appropriateness, legality, and conformance with NOPD policy and [the Consent Decree]” including an “examination for “boilerplate” or “pat” language, inconsistent information” and the failure to establish probable cause. (CD ¶136) Supervisors must “document in an auditable format” and take appropriate disciplinary or corrective action in response to search warrant requests that are legally unsupported, violate NOPD or the Consent Decree, or otherwise indicate a need for corrective action or review. (CD ¶137) Similar supervisory responsibilities apply to arrest reports. See CD ¶¶145-146. Further, “[a] command-level official shall review, in writing, all supervisory reviews related to arrests that are unsupported by probable cause, are in violation of NOPD policy, or that indicate a need for corrective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics or training.” (CD ¶42)
Viewed as a whole, the Consent Decree’s supervision requirements ensure that NOPD policy is practiced uniformly and consistently and that deviations are identified and addressed. In that regard, effective supervision can be viewed as the driveshaft that converts NOPD policy to practice on the street and transmits what is happening on the street to NOPD supervisors and leadership, who can then evaluate whether policies and procedures are being implemented effectively or whether additional or modified training on policies is warranted. In the absence of “close and effective supervision,” it is unrealistic to expect policing practices will be meaningfully reformed.
The success of NOPD’s commitment to provide close and effective supervision is dependent not simply on prescribing supervisory responsibilities but on ensuring accountability for their exercise. The Consent Decree provides, “NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers.” (CD ¶306)
We have previously reported on the state of NOPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree’s supervisory requirements as an element of subject-specific compliance. The specific subject of this report, however, is supervision itself. In this report we discuss some of our most pertinent findings regarding supervision to reveal structural or systemic obstacles to providing the close and effective supervision the Consent Decree requires. We also make recommendations for achieving the goal of “close and effective supervision” as provided in the Consent Decree.
Our findings and recommendations were the subject of a public hearing convened by the Hon. Susie Morgan on May 21, 2014. At the hearing, the Department of Justice reviewed its prior findings concerning the absence and importance of close and effective supervision and the supervisory deficiencies identified in its Findings letter. We summarized our findings and recommendations. The NOPD then responded to our findings and identified actions it has and plans to implement in response. Specifically, NOPD concurred in many of our findings and recommendations, reported it had already made some changes, and was in the process of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 6 of 21 Page 6 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com implementing others. These changes are identified below. The court actively questioned all parties concerning the findings, recommendations and responses and emphasized to the Department that it is essential that corrections and remedies be implemented expeditiously. To ensure this occurs, the court advised the NOPD it would be meeting with NOPD supervisors to ensure they understood their responsibilities and inspecting NOPD Districts to observe whether the changes have been implemented.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 7 of 21
Page 7 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Findings
• Over several quarters of monitoring, we have found persistent non-compliance with supervisory requirements of NOPD policy and the Consent Decree.
• This persistent non-compliance is primarily attributable to lack of attention, guidance, and/or accountability devoted to supervision by NOPD.
• The consequences of this lack of attention, direction, and accountability is illustrated by, among other things, supervisors’ response to the recently implemented in-car camera policy. We observed supervisors are not ensuring compliance with the policy by the NOPD members they oversee nor are they discharging their responsibility to report malfunctioning cameras.
• We have also found, however, supervisors are overburdened with non-supervisory responsibilities that consume time that would be more effectively devoted to supervision.
• Those districts that adopted forms for reporting and tracking supervision made substantial progress toward fulfilling consistently their supervision responsibilities, in some instances achieving 100% compliance.
• NOPD is making progress toward complying with supervisory ratios prescribed under the Consent Decree, but, while initial assignment ratios are often compliant, shifting assignments and lack of personnel frequently cause supervisor-to-officer ratios to exceed the limits specified in the Consent Decree.
• NOPD has initiated supervisor training. Although that training does not currently meet the requirements of the Consent Decree, it is progressing in the right direction and we will continue to monitor to ensure progress continues.
B. Recommendations
• NOPD leadership should implement forms and reporting requirements, as already adopted in certain districts, to communicate to supervisors their responsibilities, ensure those responsibilities are discharged and hold accountable those supervisors who fail to adequately and consistently execute their responsibilities.
• NOPD should examine the current non-supervisory workload of its supervisors. To the maximum extent practicable, non-supervisory tasks should be automated, civilianized, streamlined, or eliminated.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 8 of 21 Page 8 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• NOPD should take appropriate steps to ensure supervisors monitor compliance with the in-car camera policy. NOPD should take similar steps to ensure supervisors enforce compliance with all newly adopted policies.
• NOPD should continue to develop supervisor training tailored to the responsibilities of NOPD supervisors and that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree.
C. NOPD’s Response
The NOPD reports it has undertaken the following actions in response to our findings:
• NOPD has revised the officers’ Daily Activity Reports to capture whether body worn cameras are functional and used.
• NOPD has revised supervisors’ reports to better document that supervisory responsibilities are being discharged.
• NOPD has created new forms to improve information reporting and compliance documentation.
• NOPD is implementing a pilot program to reduce the amount of time supervisors must devote to entering payroll information.
• NOPD has conducted an assessment of supervisory workloads and is also hiring a workload consultant to address this issue.
• NOPD is exploring ways to reduce the time it takes for supervisors to request from the Civil Service Commission extensions for completing disciplinary investigations.
• NOPD is promoting lieutenants and sergeants, which will increase supervisory capacity.
• NOPD is civilianizing the crime lab, which will allow for deployment of three additional supervisors.
• NOPD is developing an Early Warning System that it expects will further streamline data collection and reporting.
• NOPD has implemented new performance evaluations for supervisors.
The monitoring team will monitor and report on NOPD’s execution of these reforms.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 9 of 21
Page 9 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IV. DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Supervision Generally
As we have previously reported, although we have observed ad hoc compliance with some of the Consent Decree’s supervisory requirements by individual supervisors and a genuine effort by many supervisors to perform to a high standard under difficult circumstances, more generally we observed persistent non-compliance across districts and specialized units. Deficiencies identified in one quarter remain uncured quarter after quarter. The persistent supervision deficiencies we previously observed include the following:
• Documents for photographic identification line-ups, which serve to ensure that lineups are conducted constitutionally, were often not preserved or were incomplete, inaccurate, disorganized, and hard to locate. Practices differed between districts, with some districts far worse than others. As discussed below, however, as an example of the simple steps that can be taken to achieve compliance, after Districts 4 and 8 adopted a Consent Decree checklist, photographic lineup compliance approached 100%.
• We have reported on similar deficiencies with respect to custodial interrogations. Required recordings were often not made or not maintained. Recordings were often unintelligible. Some districts did not understand the requirements for recording custodial interrogations, which caused them to create unnecessary recordings. Logs were replete with inaccuracies. The lack of recordings made it impossible to verify information contained in the logs.
• Our report for the fourth quarter of 2014 observed that, of four use of force incidents we reviewed, supervisors observed officers’ failures to follow procedures but did not respond appropriately.
• We observed that supervisors’ activity reports, also known as trip sheets, did not call for supervisors to provide the information necessary to demonstrate “close and effective supervision.”1
We have consistently observed and reported that district supervisors and command-level staff fail to demonstrate that they provide close and effective supervision of their officers. For example, we observed in most districts as well as in the specialized units a failure to adequately review use of force reports and video recordings, and a failure to report non-functioning equipment. Some, but not all, supervisors review some arrest and daily reports but we are unable to confirm that they reviewed all reports as required by the Consent Decree. While we did observe that supervisors in certain districts respond to the scene of certain arrests, lack of
1 In December 2014, NOPD modified its trip sheets to better document compliance with policy and Consent Decree requirements.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 10 of 21
Page 10 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
documentation precludes determining whether, upon responding, the supervisor performed the tasks called for by NOPD policy and the Consent Decree.
In many cases, NOPD personnel were either unaware of their supervisory responsibilities or disregarded them.2 In a few instances, we observed disdain for these responsibilities and our efforts to monitor compliance. That supervisors felt comfortable expressing these views is indicative of a lack of direction, oversight, and accountability. That full supervisory compliance remains the exception rather than the rule evidences a failure by NOPD leadership to clearly communicate expectations concerning the importance of “close and effective” supervision, as an element of Consent Decree compliance, and ensure accountability for discharging supervisory responsibilities.
Supervisors have provided anecdotal information that provides some evidence of compliance with paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree. Additionally, officers report they receive counseling from their supervisor. There is scant written evidence, however, documenting the level, uniformity, or consistency of supervision and counseling. Beyond the absence of documentation of supervision, however, our observations of persistent, wide-spread noncompliance with NOPD policies and Consent Decree requirements leads to the conclusion that supervisors are not providing “close and effective supervision.” For example, the audit of one district during April 2015 revealed the following:
• A review of custodial interrogations showed 0% compliance. There have been no recordings, due to equipment failure, since 9/23/14. (Seven months)
• A review of photographic line-ups revealed some entries did not include times, dates, the name of the viewing individual, photographic numbers, and correct name of the investigating detective. All of these are required. Many of the case files were unavailable for inspection. The information provided during the audit demonstrated evidence of compliance between 37% and 62% for paragraphs 171 to 176.
Obviously, these deficiencies were readily observable by the district supervisors. Whether they weren’t observing or weren’t responding, either explanation fails to constitute supervision, much less close and effective supervision.
B. Ensuring that Supervision Enforces Policy
To examine the relationship between NOPD policy and “close and effective supervision,” we compared supervisory response to the NOPD’s In Car Camera policy, 41.3.8 (effective March 8, 2015). We noted that in many instances supervisors were not monitoring officer’s
2 The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a sworn NOPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn NOPD personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers. CD ¶14, bbbb.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 11 of 21
Page 11 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
compliance with the policy and in some instances were unaware of the policy’s requirements. Discrepancies between policy requirements and practices in the districts for this policy include the following:
• Supervisors are not monitoring and ensuring compliance with NOPD policy that requires, “The body microphone shall be worn and remain active during the officer’s tour of duty.” Policy 41.3.8, ¶23. The in-car camera policy requires supervisors to ensure officers wear the accompanying external microphone, which is different from the microphone in the body worn camera, but the policy is not being enforced. Less than 5% of body microphone recordings audited by OCDM provide evidence that the external microphone is working and being worn by officers. Many supervisors explain the officers do not wear the external microphones since they are wearing body worn cameras, which also record audio. Regardless, that does not comply with NOPD policy.
• The policy requires police officers to document malfunctioning in-car cameras and the name of the supervisor to whom the malfunction was reported, on the officer’s daily activity report. Policy 41.3.8, ¶ 29. A majority of officers, approximately 60%, failed to complete the section of their daily activity report that requires documentation of the operability of the in-car camera. It should be noted, however, that all platoons in District 3 completed their reports, including supervisor signatures. District six showed great disparity. The third platoon was fully compliant, the second platoon was mostly compliant, but the first platoon was entirely non-compliant. The remaining districts were predominately noncompliant. Our audits clearly reveal that supervisors are not uniformly enforcing compliance with the requirement that officers provide all information called for by the daily activity reports.
• The policy provides, “Supervisors shall immediately report non-functioning or full In-Car Camera systems in writing to their respective District/Division System Administrator (DSA) with a copy forwarded to the District/Division Commander. In addition, the supervisor shall document the In-Car Camera malfunction on his/her daily activity report.” Policy 41.3.8, ¶ 32. Supervisors generally report this obligation is accomplished via e-mail yet they have not produced the emails. Only District 4 provided documentation of inoperable equipment. Most supervisor reports fail to document inoperable equipment. Thus, the majority of officers and supervisors are not reporting non-functioning In-car Cameras.
• The policy also provides, “Supervisors shall review all In-Car Camera recordings of officers listed on any report involving injuries to detainees/prisoners or officers; uses of force; vehicle pursuit; or misconduct complaints, as well as any recordings related to an incident the officer believes may result in a misconduct compliant.” Policy 41.3.8, ¶ 34. District 4 has the documentation evidencing these recordings
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 12 of 21
Page 12 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
were reviewed. All other district supervisors report they conduct random reviews of recordings, but the Monitoring Team’s audits of four districts since the release of the policy, in March 2015, reveals only one district was in compliance.
• The policy provides, “…supervisors shall regularly review In-Car Camera recordings of their subordinates to incorporate the knowledge gained from this review into the Supervisors’ ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.” Policy 41.3.8, ¶ 35. Generally, supervisors report they are unaware that their evaluations of recordings are to be incorporated into evaluations as required by this regulation.
Close and effective supervision will go a long way toward bridging the divide between policy and practice.
C. The Importance of Documenting Supervision
As our reports have shown, one of the obstacles to close and effective supervision is the absence of systems and requirements to document supervision. In the City’s Biannual Report on the status of the NOPD’s efforts to implement the Consent Decree, the City took issue with our view that lack of documentation is indicative of a lack of supervision. According to the City:
The lack of documentation should not be construed as a lack of supervision, and the Department is confident that revised reporting forms will assist in conveying to the Monitor that supervisors are closely and effectively supervising their subordinate.
Biannual Report of the New Orleans Police Department at 9 (1231/14).
Inadequate or non-existent documentation does not merely frustrate monitoring Consent Decree compliance, however. The primary purpose and importance of adequate documentation is not to assess compliance with the Consent Decree, although that is certainly vital. Adequate documentation is essential to effective supervision. As our reports have shown, there has been persistent non-compliance with numerous Consent Decree requirements, which supervisors have observed but not addressed. The core deficiency is not a lack of documentation, but a lack of supervision and systems for holding supervisors accountable.
Documentation is the means by which institutions communicate, coordinate, and evaluate their standards, activities, and performance. For instance, the absence of documentation impairs supervisors’ ability to communicate among themselves, across shifts for example, concerning discipline or counseling provided to officers. Consequently, each supervisor’s knowledge is effectively limited to his or her observations and actions. When officers are transferred between districts or change shifts, their new supervisor has no ability to determine whether there are particular performance issues concerning the new officer the supervisor should be alert to. For example, as we previously reported, supervisors in more than one district informed us that
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 13 of 21
Page 13 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
information concerning disciplinary actions taken against their officers is not readily available to them. To check for disciplinary actions filed against any of their officers would require checking each officer’s file or obtaining the information from the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”).3
As we have previously observed, lack of documentation precludes upper-level supervisors from determining whether sergeants and lieutenants are discharging their supervisory responsibilities adequately. It also frustrates other important aspects of effective policing, which are called for in the Consent Decree. For example, inadequate or non-existent documentation of discipline or counseling impairs the NOPD’s ability to identify signs that an officer needs training, counseling, or discipline.
Inadequate documentation by supervisors also impairs the NOPD’s ability to evaluate whether an officer meets the criteria for promotion. As part of the annual performance review process, for example, supervisors are required to meet with their subordinates on an ongoing basis and annually to discuss their performance and document the supervisor’s ongoing efforts and communications regarding officer performance challenges and areas of growth. NOPD has also agreed to work with Civil Service to
develop and implement an NOPD-specific system that comports with best practices and the requirements of this Agreement to accurately evaluate officer performance in areas related to integrity, community policing and critical police functions, on both an ongoing and annual basis.
(CD ¶295) It is simply unrealistic to believe a supervisor can meaningfully perform this duty if he or she has not documented the officers’ performance on an ongoing basis.
A disturbing indicator of the NOPD’s failure to hold supervisor’s accountable is our observation that some supervisors’ attitudes toward compliance with their supervisory responsibilities has ranged from indifference to hostility. Fortunately, the initiative shown by individual sergeants and lieutenants has demonstrated that proper documentation can be transformative. By implementing checklists and focusing on continuous improvement, districts have gone from significant non-compliance to virtually 100% compliance.
D. Ensuring Supervisory Accountability.
The NOPD clearly knows how to hold supervisors accountable. It employs systems and requirements that measure and hold supervisors accountable for their performance; namely
3 According to NOPD, the Early Warning System currently being developed will be a central repository for tracking disciplinary information, which supervisors will be able to readily access.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 14 of 21
Page 14 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
COMSTAT.4 Sergeants and lieutenants are required to and do closely track their COMSTAT statistics and are held accountable for their response at weekly COMSTAT meetings. Given this demonstrated ability to communicate and ingrain in supervisors the importance of COMSTAT performance, there is simply no reason the same cannot be done with the equally important Consent Decree requirements. In fact, one sergeant on his own developed a compliance checklist for his district. As an unfortunate counterpoint to this initiative to implement the Consent Decree, when a member of the Monitoring Team commended the sergeant’s initiative as a model for other districts to a district lieutenant, the lieutenant responded he would discipline an officer for creating an unauthorized form. Fortunately, that lieutenant’s attitude appears atypical (and he wisely did not carry through on his initial threat). By contrast, the District 4 lieutenant implemented a checklist that brought that district into compliance. Other districts eventually also adopted the form.
NOPD adopted a new supervisory report on January 1, 2015. All eight districts and SOD were monitored for compliance since the new supervisor form was put into use. Only approximately half of the districts completed the form fully. That some districts are using the report to achieve and ensure compliance demonstrates that documentation can drive compliance and underscores the importance of all districts doing so.
E. Supervisor Workload
It has become abundantly clear to the Monitoring Team that a major impediment to achieving close and effective supervision is the number of non-supervisory tasks currently imposed on supervisors. When supervisors are tasked with performing duties that are not supervisory in nature their limited time is unproductively diverted from supervising. Considerable effort, time and expense is dedicated to selecting and training supervisors so they can ensure officers complete their duties effectively and in compliance with law, NOPD policies, and the Consent Decree. Duties that are not supervisory in nature should be either eliminated, computerized, or civilianized to the extent feasible. At a minimum, they should be conducted as efficiently as practicable.
We interviewed NOPD supervisors concerning their workload and the amount of time each task consumed. The following chart summarizes the activities they identified and the minimum and maximum amount of time consumed by each activity. The chart is based on the supervisors’ subjective accounts, although the amounts of time reported were generally consistent. The amounts are also consistent with our observations and our experts’ familiarity with these kinds of activities. Nevertheless, allowing for some imprecision and even overstatement, it is clear that supervisors are tasked with significant non-supervisory responsibilities.
4 COMSTAT, an abbreviation for Computer Statistics (also often referred to as COMPSTAT), is a data-driven management tool used by police departments to track crime reports to enable the police to identify and respond to trends.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 15 of 21
Page 15 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Supervisors’ Daily Activity Load (Average)

Activity

min

Conduct roll call

20

Line up to desk officer

2

Court notifications

10

966 book (witness drug test of seized drugs) 5

Prisoner book

5

Evaluations

5

Check MVR microphones/BWCs

0

Review and approve trip sheets

30

Complete supervisor activity report

10

Review police reports (EPR/CRASH)

120

Review/sign citations and affidavits

15

Enter officer’s stats from trip sheet

30

Reviewing recordings

65

Review punches in ADP (payroll)

60

Trip system (old payroll system)

30

Domestic violence reports (4 risk questions) 30

FIC database

10

Log in police reports from previous day’s 20 REPO5

Total Time (in minutes)

467

max 35 5
5 60 15 480 20 90 180
20 30
940

Supervisors’ Monthly Activity Load

Activity (weekly)

from to

Complete arrest/stat for district COMSTAT 180 240

Prepare for district COMSTAT

30

Scheduling

60 320

Training

60

(Includes in-service, roll call, and Daily

training bulletins)

Weekly

lock 60

ADP/trip, beat-roll book, ADP Schedule,

Monitor J and T time

Platoon filing system Total Time (in minutes)

60 450 560

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 16 of 21
Page 16 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Additional Supervisory Duties Activity File for DI1 extension

from to 120 180

DI1 investigation

1440 4800

Officer/Month nominations Review and submit beat book to admin (payroll)
Domestic violence stats Total Time (in minutes)

60 5
5 1630

4980

frequency approx. 1-2x monthly 1-2x quarterly monthly monthly
monthly

The process for obtaining extensions from Civil Service for completing DI-1 investigations listed in the table is inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming and warrants further explanation.5 Supervisors regularly seek extensions because the standard deadlines are short and, as shown above, they have many competing daily and weekly duties. They also can be detailed to various events, such as Jazzfest, Mardi Gras, and others. Supervisors report it is their understanding that to request an extension the Civil Service Commission requires them to do the following:
1. Compose a letter to Civil Service requesting an extension of the time limits. (Approximately 20 minutes);
2. Travel to Civil Service to file the letter and then drop it off at PIB as required and return to the station. (Approximately 45 to 60 minutes)
3. Travel to the hearing (many times while not scheduled to work). (Up to one hour)
4. Testify at hearing in support of extension. (Up to 60 minutes)
This amounts to roughly 3 to 3 ½ hours of work to request a routine extension, on virtually every case assigned.6

5 A DI-1 is a memo used to initiate disciplinary action. 6 It is unclear whether the Commission in fact requires this process to be followed or whether the belief is the product of misunderstanding or lack of clarity.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 17 of 21
Page 17 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In addition to the above times, supervisors report the following activities also prevent them from performing as a supervisor on the street:
• Officers spend 2-3 hours to obtain an arrest warrant. During that time, a supervisor is often required to serve as back-up on calls due to officer shortages.7
• Officers are required to categorize all recordings for calls, consuming a great deal of time during which time supervisors have to serve as back-up. The sergeants must also review and complete recording information. The sergeants state their officers had been using their personal cell phones that automatically included much of the information that was from an application on their phone. However, the sergeants state personnel are prohibited from using the cell phone application to expedite the transfer of information into the categorization of recordings.
In sum, there is a clear and pressing need for NOPD to evaluate supervisory workloads and establish its priorities. The failure to do so not only impedes close and effective supervision but is unfair to those supervisors who are assigned unreasonable workloads.
F. Supervisor Assignments (¶¶307-312)
Paragraphs 307-312 of the Consent Decree generally provide for clear and consistent supervisory reporting and accountability. All Field Operations Bureau district officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor. (CD ¶307) Although three districts were able to demonstrate compliance with this requirement, five were not. Only one district demonstrated compliance with paragraph 308’s requirement that task force and narcotics supervisors work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise. NOPD has complied with the requirement of paragraph 309 that district platoon Patrol supervisors shall be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and work the same days and hours.
Paragraph 310 provides “first-line patrol supervisors are to be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers” and that “on duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units.” (CD ¶310) Generally, supervisors are not initially assigned to supervise more than eight officers. Due to shifting assignments or lack of personnel, however, the ratios frequently fall out of compliance resulting in supervisor to officer ratios that exceed the prescribed limits. Additionally, again, the documentation maintained by some shifts fails to list the schedule supervisors have worked, which precludes assessing compliance.
7 NOPD reports that it is in the process of acquiring an electronic warrant system that will greatly reduce the time consumed obtaining an arrest warrant.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 18 of 21 Page 18 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
NOPD has not identified and trained “acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-need basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable.” (CD ¶311)8
G. Supervisor and Command-Level Training (¶¶314-315)
The Consent Decree requires that NOPD’s supervisory training program include instruction in the following topics:
a) techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices;
b) de-escalating conflict, including through peer intervention when necessary;
c) evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-based description, and how to identify “pat,” “boilerplate,” or conclusory language that is not explained by specific facts;
d) investigating officer use of force;
e) responding to and investigating allegations of officer misconduct;
f) operation of supervisory tools such as EWS, mobile recording equipment, and AVL;
g) burdens of proof, interview techniques, and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant, or witness credibility, to ensure that investigative findings, conclusions, and recommendations are unbiased, uniform and legally supported;
h) evaluating officer performance as part of NOPD’s annual performance evaluation system;
i) fostering positive career development and imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions and non-disciplinary corrective action;
j) building community partnerships and guiding officers on same; and
k) incorporating integrity-related data into COMSTAT reporting. (CD 315)
l) NOPD has relied upon a lesson plan used for training FBI agents to provide the requisite mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. (CD
8 NOPD reports there are legal constraints on its ability to comply with this provision of the Consent Decree, which it is addressing with Department Of Justice.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 19 of 21
Page 19 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
¶314) NOPD has not, however, developed lesson plans tailored to the duties of NOPD officers and the requirements of the Consent Decree, as enumerated in paragraph 315:
It is self-evident that training on the NOPD officers’ specific duties and responsibilities is essential for ensuring supervisors are able to provide the guidance and accountability critical to reforming the NOPD’s practices. The FBI training, while of some value, is not tailored to the needs of NOPD members and in certain respects covers matters not applicable to NOPD.
H. Additional Findings regarding Supervision
In-car cameras. In-car cameras remain plagued with inoperability. Officers are unable to use in-car cameras due to malfunctions. Only one district tracks whether supervisors report malfunctioning cameras. There is little documentation of a malfunctioning camera even though it is required of the Consent Decree.
Use of Force Reports: For most of the use of force reports for which a recording was not completed, the supervisor indicates the officer was counseled. However, there is no accompanying documentation (DI-2 or 105) as evidence of supervisory follow-through.
Handheld Digital Recording Devices. Each supervisor is required to have a handheld digital recording device to use during all complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations. A few supervisors don’t have recording devices. Some supervisors are unsure when their use is required. Very few supervisors document that they record use of force investigations in their reports.
I. Recommendations
NOPD must re-energize its efforts to ensure close and effective supervision. To that end, we offer the following recommendations consistent with the requirements of the Consent Decree.
1. NOPD Should Ensure that the Consent Decree’s Supervisory Requirements Are Consistently Discharged.
Our monitoring has revealed that supervisors are not consistently discharging the supervisory responsibilities specifically enumerated in paragraph 306. Without systems to track compliance NOPD is unable to ensure that supervisors discharge these responsibilities. NOPD should implement systems to ensure that discharge of these responsibilities is documented in an auditable form.
2. NOPD Should Provide Newly Assigned Supervisors a List of the Consent Decree Requirements for Supervision, Custodial
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 20 of 21
Page 20 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Interrogation, and Photographic Line-Ups and Ensure They Are Discharged.
The list should be distributed to each district, Homicide, Special Operations, and Special Victims so they can refer to its direction for preparation of the next audit. Also, the use of the manual should provide instruction for newly assigned personnel when transfers are made.
3. Track Consent Decree Compliance as Rigorously as COMSTAT Performance.
NOPD should develop systems to track compliance with the Consent Decree’s supervision requirements with the same diligence COMSTAT data are tracked throughout the Department.
Bulletin boards contain mostly COMSTAT information for the district. Equivalent importance should be given Consent Decree requirements. Bulletin boards in districts and SOD should contain information concerning compliance with the last Consent Decree compliance audit of that duty location.
4. Supervisors Should Meet Monthly to Evaluate and Improve Supervision.
There should be regular, at least monthly, meetings of designated supervisors from each duty location to include all districts, SOD, Homicide and Special Victims Section held by the Compliance Bureau to evaluate compliance issues regarding supervisory responsibilities.
The designated supervisors in each duty location are generally aware of the duty location’s compliance performance, successes, and challenges. These meetings will foster idea-sharing and allow supervisors to compare their compliance to their peers’ performance.
5. Assess and Right-Size Supervisory Workloads
Supervisors’ workloads should be reviewed and assessed to determine which duties can be civilianized, computerized, streamlined, or eliminated. The two payroll systems currently being managed by sergeants should be either computerized or civilianized. In addition, data transfers from officer activity sheets onto supervisor activity sheets or onto other reports used for COMSTAT or other purposes should be computerized or civilianized. Inefficiencies in Civil Service procedures should be addressed.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 446-1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 21 of 21 Page 21 of 21 July 21, 2015 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
J. Conclusion Despite the noteworthy efforts of certain individual supervisors to meet the supervision standards set forth in the Consent Decree, more than two years after entering into the Consent Decree and over the approximately 18 months we have been monitoring Consent Decree compliance, NOPD has neither developed nor implemented adequate procedures and practices to ensure “close and effective” supervision, including, supervisory training, assignments, and performance measures. The failure to ensure “close and effective supervision” frustrates and delays achieving compliance under the Consent Decree with respect not only to the supervision requirements, but the substantive reforms necessary to remedy the practices identified in the Department of Justice Findings Letter. NOPD leadership should take immediate steps to implement appropriate systems to ensure that supervisors understand their responsibilities, fulfill them consistently, and are held accountable for their failure to do so. It is equally important, however, that NOPD examine supervisors’ workloads. It is clear many supervisors want to provide proper supervision to their officers, but are overburdened with administrative duties. These administrative duties cause supervisors to sacrifice time available for supervision and that can be better performed more cost-effectively in other ways. Some of these deficiencies can and should be remedied immediately. For those that cannot, however, NOPD should establish an implementation deadline. Aggressive and effective implementation of the supervisory requirements of NOPD policy and the Consent Decree is one of the most costeffective measures NOPD can take to expeditiously remedy the practices found in the Department of Justice findings letter and increase compliance with the Consent Decree. As reported above, in the course of the public hearing on supervision, NOPD reported that it has implemented a number of changes to address the deficiencies we reported and additional changes are planned. We will continue to monitor and report on the implementation and effectiveness of these changes.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 19

ADDENDUM Request for Proposals to serve as CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR of the New Orleans Police Department
October 25, 2012
Revised Section IV. Deadline for Submitting of Proposals:
All hard copies and electronic copies of Proposals must be received by the City and DOJ on November 16, 2012 by 5:00 p.m. CST. All those who submitted proposals prior to October 5, 2012 may submit any supplement to those proposals by this deadline. Proposals or supplements to proposals submitted by fax will not be accepted. Proposals or supplements to proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. Delivery claims not clearly documented by original receipt will not be credited.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 19


Request for Proposals to serve as CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR
of the New Orleans Police Department SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
I. Introduction
The City of New Orleans (“City”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seek firms and/or individuals to serve as a “Consent Decree Court Monitor” (“Monitor”) to monitor the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) pursuant to a consent decree (“Consent Decree”) executed between the City and DOJ (the “Project”). The Consent Decree is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Court”) and may be amended by order of the Court at any time so long as the Court has jurisdiction.
The City and DOJ (collectively “Parties”) will jointly select a Monitor pursuant to Court order and oversight. Upon review and approval of the Court, the Monitor shall be appointed to monitor implementation of the Consent Decree consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree and the requirements set out below. The Monitor shall be contracted for a term of four years, to be extended as necessary to fulfill the terms of the Consent Decree. Consistent with the Consent Decree, the Monitor may be removed during the course of the Consent Decree by Court order, either pursuant to a motion for removal by either or both Parties, or by a Court-initiated order of removal.
Copies of this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and related information are available at: 1. http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/ (“Court’s Website”); 2. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl (“DOJ Website”); and 3. http://www.purchasing.nola.gov/bso/login.jsp (“City’s website”).
II. Background
On March 16, 2011, DOJ issued the Report of its investigation into NOPD. The investigation was conducted with the full cooperation of the City and NOPD. The Report is available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl and http://www.laed.uscourts.gov.
On July 24, 2012, the City and DOJ filed the Consent Decree, along with a Joint Motion asking the Court to enter the Consent Decree as an order of the Court, in the Eastern District of Louisiana. United States v. City of New Orleans, Case No. 12-1924. The Consent Decree is available at http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/. The Court currently is considering whether to approve the Consent Decree, and has scheduled a fairness hearing for September 21, 2012, at 10 a.m. to consider the issue.
The Consent Decree addresses the following substantive areas: use of force; stops, searches and arrests; discriminatory policing (Race, Ethnicity, National Origin, Gender, LGBT Status); recruitment; training (In-Service and Recruit); supervision (including systems for early intervention); secondary employment (formerly known as “Paid Details”); performance evaluations and promotions; misconduct complaint intake and investigations; community engagement; officer assistance and support services; transparency and oversight; interrogation

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 2


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 19

practices; and photographic lineups. Implementation of various measures and practices required by the Consent Decree must be monitored by a “Consent Decree Monitor.” ¶¶ 21-23, 149, 152, 231, 250, 257, 326, 444-484.
The City of New Orleans, the geographic boundaries of which are coterminous with those of Orleans Parish, occupies approximately 350 square miles and has approximately 344,000 residents. The City was created by city charter which established a mayor-council government. There is one city council member for each of the five council districts, as well as two at-large council members. The mayor is elected to a four-year term. The Superintendent of NOPD is appointed by the Mayor. NOPD currently consists of 1295 sworn officers and 248 civilian support staff. The majority of this manpower is concentrated within NOPD’s eight police patrol districts with remaining personnel assigned to headquarters and specialized service assignments.
III. Instructions for Submitting Proposal
A. Respondents shall submit Proposals to both DOJ and the City:
1. One (1) signed hard copy of the Proposal in a sealed envelope, marked “Consent Decree Court Monitor” and one (1) electronically transmitted Proposal in Microsoft Word format marked “Consent Decree Court Monitor.”
2. A cover letter including Respondent’s name, address (including email address), telephone and primary contact for the Respondent.
B. Proposals should be submitted to both DOJ and the City at the following addresses:
1. Hard copy to City of New Orleans, Danny Cazenave, 715 South Broad Street, Room 501, New Orleans, LA 70119 and electronic copy to dvcazenave@nola.gov. Please state “New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor Proposal” in the subject line of the email.
2. Hard copy to United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Attention of: Christy E. Lopez, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20004 and electronic copy to Christy.Lopez@usdoj.gov. Please state “New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor Proposal” in the subject line of the email.
III. Contents of Proposal
As set out more fully in Attachment “A,” Proposals should clearly demonstrate the Respondent’s qualifications to perform the requested scope of work and attend to all factors applicable in a professional relationship. Proposals should include detailed resumes or curricula vitae for the principals of the Respondent and any subcontractors performing the services. Proposals shall include also a price proposal, which shall set out the fees and costs the Respondent proposes to charge the City to provide the needed services. The parties wish to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBEs”) have the opportunity to participate in the Project. See Attachment “B” for the DBE requirements for this RFP. A DBE participation

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 3


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 4 of 19

plan must be submitted with the Proposal. Proposals also should include Attachments “C” and “D” to this RFP.
IV. Deadline for Submitting Proposals
All hard copies and electronic copies of Proposals must be received by the City and DOJ on October 5, 2012 by 5:00 p.m. CST. Proposals submitted by fax will not be accepted. Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. Delivery claims not clearly documented by original receipt will not be credited.
V. Pre-Proposal Conference; Questions Regarding RFP
The Parties will hold a pre-proposal conference in Room C-467, Fourth Floor of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA on September 20, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. CST.1 Respondents should submit any questions in writing to the Parties by email on or before September 14, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. at the email addresses for the City and DOJ listed in Section III, above. Subsequent to the pre-proposal conference, the Parties will issue an addendum to this RFP regarding questions addressed at the pre-proposal conference.
VI. Selection Process
After the Proposal submission deadline has passed, the Parties will form an Evaluation Committee, which will evaluate each Proposal based on the qualifications and scope of work set out in Attachment “A,” the Respondent’s DBE participation plan described in Attachment “B,” and the information contained in Attachments “C” and “D.” The Evaluation Committee shall include equal representation from DOJ and the City.
During its review of each Proposal, DBE participation plan, and Attachments, the Evaluation Committee may
• conduct reference checks relevant to the Project with any or all of the references cited in a Proposal to verify any and all information, and rely on or consider any relevant information from such cited references in the evaluation of Proposals;
• seek clarification of a Proposal from any or all Respondents and consider such supplementary information in the evaluation of Submissions; and
• request information from Respondents to clarify the information included in Proposals, the DBE participation plan, and/or the Attachments, and consider any supplementary information from interviews/presentations in the evaluation.
1 Attendance by Respondents, in person or by telephone, at the pre-proposal conference is strongly encouraged. The City will have a representative available at the pre-proposal conference to explain the City’s DBE program. Any person seeking to attend via telephone must email his/her name, name of business represented, mailing address, telephone number, and email address to efile-Morgan@laed.uscourts.gov no later than September 17, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. An officer of the Court will then contact all interested persons and provide instructions for attendance via telephone.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 4


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 5 of 19


Pursuant to the above process, the Parties will select a short list of Respondents to be interviewed in a public forum. The Parties shall jointly select a Monitor from the short list, whose selection shall be subject to approval by the Court. The Court may conduct a private interview of the Parties’ short list selection and/or final selection before granting or denying its approval of the Monitor.
VIII. Form of Contract
Once selected and approved by the Court, the City will fix the relationship by Professional Services contract. The form of the Professional Services contract will be released as an addendum to this RFP on or around September 10, 2012 by publication on the Court’s Website, the DOJ Website, and the City’s Website.
The Professional Services contract will require Respondents to comply with the “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” (“DBE”) provisions shown in Attachment “B,” to provide an updated Conflict of Interest Disclosure Affidavit shown in Attachment “C,” and to provide an updated List of Subcontractors shown in Attachment “D.”
IX. Ownership
All Proposals and all documentation submitted therewith are property of the Parties for all purposes and are public records after the Proposal submission deadline. Respondents will clearly mark documents or information they request to be exempt from public records disclosure and specifically justify the exemption. Blanket exemption claims lacking specific justification will not be credited.
X. Effect
This RFP and any related discussions or evaluations by anyone create no rights or obligations whatsoever. The Parties may cancel or modify this solicitation at any time at will, with or without notice. The Professional Services contract is the exclusive statement of rights and obligations extending from this solicitation, except that it will be read to comply with the Consent Decree, which may be modified by Court order.
XI. Prohibition on Communication
From this date until the final award, there is a prohibition on communication by Respondents (or anyone on their behalves) with the Parties or their staffs regarding this RFP or the Consent Decree, except that Respondents may:
(1) Submit any questions in writing to the Parties by email on or before September 14, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. at the email addresses for the City and DOJ listed above;
(2) Submit questions regarding DBE certification by another local, state, or national certifying agency to DOJ and the City at the email addresses listed above;
(3) Submit questions regarding the City’s DBE program to Danny Cazenave at dvcazenave@nola.gov.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 5


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 6 of 19

XII. Proposal Process Modification:
The Parties will make every effort to administer the Proposal process in accordance with the terms and dates discussed in the RFP. However, the Parties reserve the right to modify the Proposal process and dates as deemed necessary. If the Parties are unable to select a Consent Decree Monitor and his or her project team as proposed by the Respondent(s), the Parties reserve the right to reconstitute a team by selecting and combining individuals from one or more Respondent team(s) to serve as the Consent Decree Monitor and his or her project team, subject to Court approval
XIII. Audit and Oversight of the Monitor
The Monitor shall be subject to audit and oversight by the City, DOJ, and the Court. The City, DOJ, and the Court each shall have the right to audit, inspect, and review all books and records of the Monitor. In addition, the Monitor shall maintain all books and records together with supporting or underlying documents and materials for the duration of the contract, including any and all renewals thereof, and for at least five (5) years thereafter. More information regarding the audit and oversight of the Monitor will be set forth in the Professional Services contract to be released as an addendum to this RFP.
XIV. Required Attachments
Respondents are required to complete and submit the following Attachments and submit along with their Proposal:
1) DBE participation as described in Attachment “B” (DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES)
2) Attachment “C” (CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT)
3) Attachment “D” (LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS)
:

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 6


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 7 of 19


Request for Proposals to Serve as CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR
of the New Orleans Police Department SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Attachment “A”
Needed Services
Scope of Work: Descriptions herein of the Monitor’s duties are illustrative and non-exclusive. The fullest description of the Monitor’s duties and responsibilities under the Consent Decree is in the Consent Decree itself, and Respondents should closely review the Consent Decree and ensure that their Proposals are responsive to it. The Consent Decree is subject to court approval and may be modified by the Court from time to time. The Monitor will be required to modify its activities as required pursuant to any such modifications. Generally, the Consent Decree Court Monitor shall be responsible for independently and objectively assessing and reporting on whether the requirements of the Consent Decree are being implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in the constitutional treatment of individuals and increased community trust of NOPD. The Consent Decree Monitor shall report directly to the Court and shall prepare reports to be distributed publicly. The Monitor will be expected to serve at least four years, with extensions as necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Consent Decree. Consistent with the Consent Decree, the Monitor may be removed during the course of the Consent Decree by Court order, either pursuant to a motion for removal by either Party or both Parties, or by a Court-initiated order of removal.
As set out in the Consent Decree, the Consent Decree Court Monitor’s duties include the following:
• Monitor and evaluate NOPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree (¶ 444); • Regularly report to the Court on NOPD’s progress implementing the Consent Decree and
any obstacles to implementation (¶ 457); • Develop and carry out a plan to conduct compliance audits and reviews to ensure the
NOPD’s compliance with the requirements and purpose of the Consent Decree (¶¶ 450-453); • Conduct Outcome Assessments (¶ 448); • Develop reliable methodologies for completing the audits and reviews necessary to assess compliance with provisions of Agreement and to conduct Outcome Assessments (¶¶ 450-453); • Review and recommend modifications to Outcome Assessment measurements (¶ 451); • Review and comment on policies developed pursuant to the Agreement and work with Parties to resolve any disagreements regarding policy development (¶¶ 21-23); • Review training materials (¶¶ 21-23, 250, 257); • Review use of force and misconduct investigations (¶ 454); • Conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the Agreement in two years (¶ 456); • Recommend strategies to improve NOPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree (¶ 455);

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 7


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 8 of 19

• Provide or facilitate the provision of technical assistance to NOPD (¶ 455); • Issue regular public reports on NOPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree

(¶¶ 457-458);
 • Regularly communicate with the City, NOPD, and DOJ as necessary to facilitate

effective implementation of the Agreement and regarding NOPD’s progress
 implementing the Consent Decree and any obstacles to implementation (¶ 460);
 • Receive from and provide information to the New Orleans community concerning the Consent Decree (¶¶ 231, 461); • Coordinate and confer with the Public Integrity Bureau, the Independent Police Monitor, the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), and other civilian oversight entities to facilitate the efficient and effective use of oversight resources (¶ 443); • Maintain all documents related to this project in a confidential manner to the extent required by the Consent Decree (¶ 476); • Testify in litigation or proceedings as provided by the Consent Decree (¶ 463); • Make public statements only as permitted by the terms of the Consent Decree (462); and • Maintain the highest ethical standards (¶ 477).
The substantive requirements of the Consent Decree are grouped into the following general areas:
• Use of force; • Stops, searches and arrests; • Discriminatory policing (Race, Ethnicity, National Origin, Gender, LGBT Status); • Recruitment; • Training (In-Service and Recruit); • Supervision (including systems for early intervention); • Secondary employment (currently known as “Paid Details”); • Performance evaluations and promotions; • Misconduct complaint intake and investigations; • Community Engagement; • Officer assistance and support services; • Transparency and Oversight; • Interrogation practices; and • Photographic Lineups.
To assist the Parties and Court’s assessment of whether Respondents can provide the above needed services, Proposals shall include the following:
Executive Summary: Provide a brief description of the manner in which you and your team would complete the project.
Personnel: Provide the name(s) of the individual(s) and/or subcontractor consultant(s) and/or agency(ies) who would comprise your team, including a summary of the relevant background/experience of each team member. Provide an organizational chart showing the lines of responsibility and reporting for the Consent Decree Court Monitor, if applicable. If the

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 8


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 9 of 19


identity of the individuals or entities that would assist in performing the monitoring function is unknown at the present time, state the areas of expertise you would seek to retain and your organization’s process for contracting for such services. Please include a description of all other current employment, projects, or other professional undertakings or commitments for each team member, and note known end dates for the employment, project, undertaking or commitment.
Qualifications: Describe your or members of your team’s qualifications, addressing each of the following areas as applicable:
• law enforcement practices, including training, community policing and 
 problem-oriented policing, complaint and use of force investigation;

• monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders;
• evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures;
• institutional transformation and change management; • development of flexible but durable continuous quality improvement infrastructure; • mediation and dispute resolution; • statistical and data analysis; • information technology; • data management; • working with government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units; • appropriate language skills and experience working with limited English proficient
persons and communities, in particular communities whose primary language is Spanish or Vietnamese; • familiarity and understanding of local issues and conditions; • effective engagement with diverse communities; • creation and evaluation of meaningful civilian oversight mechanisms; • familiarity with federal, Louisiana and local laws, policies and rules governing police practices; • completing projects within anticipated deadlines and budget; • preparing for and participating in court proceedings; and • report writing for a broad variety of stakeholders.
References: List current or recent (within past 10 years) project experience possessed by you or members of your team relevant to the monitoring tasks sought herein if applicable. Furnish references for each project listed, including the name of the organization, contact person, title, address, e-mail address and telephone number. If available, submit non-confidential work products that are similar to the reports required for this project.
Proposed Activities: Describe (in as specific detail as possible and using illustrations as necessary) the activities you would propose to undertake to perform the Needed Services. This discussion may address but not be limited to:
• methods of obtaining information

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 9


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 10 of 19

• methods of analyzing information • methods of reporting information • frequency of proposed activities • the personnel (e.g., yourself, employees assigned to the Consent Decree Court
Monitor, or proposed subcontractor(s)) responsible for the various activities described in the Scope of Work and the number of hours anticipated to be devoted to specific aspects of the project by month or quarter • how the Consent Decree Court Monitor would coordinate with the City and NOPD to arrange visits, on-site records reviews and interviews and • how the Consent Decree Court Monitor would coordinate its monitoring activities, information gathering, and communications with the Parties and members of the community.
Potential Conflict or Bias: Disclose any potential or perceived conflicts of interest involving yourself, your team, your firm, employee(s) assigned to the project, or proposed subcontractor(s), including current or former employment, contracts or grants with any of the Parties and any involvement in the last eight years (whether paid or unpaid) with a claim or lawsuit by or against any of the Parties or any of their officers, agents, or employees. Any close, familial, or business relationship with any of the Parties, or the Parties’ agents or employees, must be disclosed. Disclose whether any member of your team has been the proponent or subject of any complaint, claim, or lawsuit alleging misconduct. To the extent a conflict or potential bias exists, explain why it does not bar your selection, including any legal or ethical opinions or waivers upon which you rely.
Local Presence: To the extent members of your Team are not located in New Orleans, describe in detail how your proposed team would establish an adequate presence in New Orleans to provide the services called for herein.
Price Proposal: Based on the above Scope of Work and requirement of the Consent Decree provide a Price Proposal for this project. This Price Proposal shall:
• Include a budget for all costs including but not limited to: staff hourly billing rates, travel, sub-consultant/contractor services, overhead, and supplies.
• Break down the different activities that will be performed by members of the project team (e.g., policy review, technical assistance, training assessment, report writing, and/or incident review).
• Include a projected allocation of hourly commitments by each team member, broken down by the number of hours projected for both on-site and off-site work.
• Take into account the uncertainty of the duration of the Decree and include both one-time or fixed costs that will be incurred regardless of the duration of the contract, and annual costs that will be incurred for each year the contract is in effect.
• Include a cost-cap above which fees and costs shall not be billed.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 10


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 11 of 19


Request for Proposals to Serve as CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR
of the New Orleans Police Department SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Attachment “B”
REQUIRED CONTRACT DBE PROVISIONS
I. DBE Contract Goal:
A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) contract goal of 35 percent (the “DBE Contract Goal”) has been established for this RFP. This means that 35 percent of contract or subcontract dollars should be allocated to one or more certified DBEs during the term of the Professional Services contract.
II. DBE Participation Required:
No Professional Services contract will be signed until the Respondent, either alone or in combination with its subcontractors, satisfies all DBE requirements as set forth herein, including the requirements in Section IV below regarding the participation plan.
III. DBE Program Compliance:
The DBE Contract Goal requirement may be satisfied by:
(1) Current valid certification of the Respondent or its subcontractors by the City of New Orleans through its Office of Supplier Diversity as set forth in Section V(A)(1), below;
(2) Current valid certification by one of the firms or entities recognized by the City listed in Section IV(A)(2)-(5) below;
(3) Current valid certification of the Respondent or its subcontractors by a local, state, or national governmental entity of the United States of America; or
(4) Proof that the Respondent or its subcontractor(s) have applied for DBE certification by the City on or before September 24, 2012 and are diligently pursuing certification through the expedited process established for this RFP. Any Respondent or subcontractor wishing to comply with the DBE participation requirement by applying to the City must submit its application to the City by email to Danny Cazanave at dvcazenave@nola.gov with the subject line “Consent Decree DBE-Expedited Request” and copy to Christy Lopez of the United States Department of Justice at Christy.Lopez@usdoj.gov. The expedited approval process will be overseen by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Court”) in conjunction with United States v. City of New Orleans, Case No. 12-1924. DBE certification through the City must be complete before a Professional Services contract may be signed.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 11


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 12 of 19


IV. DBE Participation Plan:
A Respondent wishing to satisfy DBE requirements under this RFP must submit with its Proposal a DBE participation plan as to how it intends to meet the DBE Contract Goal. The participation plan should include: (1) the name of the person who will administer the DBE participation plan; (2) the percentage and dollar goals for the work to be performed by the DBE certified Respondent (if applicable); and (3) the percentage and dollar goals for the work to be performed under subcontracts awarded to certified DBE subcontractors, identifying each subcontractor, the entity by which each subcontractor is certified, and the scope of work for each subcontractor (if applicable). An updated DBE participation plan must be submitted by the awarded Respondent on a quarterly basis. Failure to include the essential information described above in the original participation plan and quarterly updates may be cause for either a delay in acceptance of a Proposal, the rejection of a Proposal as non-responsive, or termination of the Monitor.
V. Crediting DBE Participation through the City:
A. In the event that Respondent wishes to meet the DBE participation requirement through current valid certification by the City, the firms identified by Respondent as DBE must be currently certified through one of the certification entities recognized by the City of New Orleans listed in (1) through (5) below:
(1) City of New Orleans (All Certifications); (2) Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (SLDBE certification); (3) New Orleans Aviation Board (SLDBE certification and Louisiana Unified/DOTD
certification); (4) Harrah’s New Orleans (SLDBE Certification only); and (5) Louisiana Unified Certification Program (LAUCP) Certified firms.
B. DBEs which are currently certified by the City may be found on the following websites:
(1) City of New Orleans database of certified firms at www.nola.gov; (2) Sewerage & Water Board's list of certified SLDBE firms at www.swbno.org; (3) The New Orleans Aviation Boards list of SLDBE firms or DOTD firms at
www.flymsy.com; and (4) The list of LAUCP firms at www.dotd.la.gov.
VI. DBE Compliance Reporting:
The awarded Respondent and all participating subcontractors awarded contracts as a result of this RFP process may be required to use a secure web-based compliance management system to submit project information on all expenditures made to achieve compliance with the DBE Contract Goal for this RFP. The information regarding the compliance system to be used will be provided to the awarded Respondent after award of the contract.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 12


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 13 of 19
VII. Access to Books and Records: The awarded Respondent agrees to grant the Parties and the Court reasonable access to its books and records for purposes of verifying compliance with the DBE Contract Goal for the RFP. VIII. Defined Terms Defined terms used but not defined herein are defined as set forth in the RFP.

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 13


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 14 of 19

Request for Proposals to Serve as
 CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR

of the New Orleans Police Department
 SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
 Attachment “C”
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT See attachment

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 14


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 15 of 19


CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF

PARISH/COUNTY OF

Before me, the undersigned authority, came and appeared who, being first duly sworn, deposed and said that:

1. He/She is the

and authorized representative of , hereafter called “Respondent.”

_____,

2. The Respondent submits the attached Proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to serve as the Consent Decree Court Monitor of the New Orleans Police Department.

3. line.]:

The Respondent hereby states that a conflict of interest [Mark the appropriate

____ Exists
 ____ May exist
 ____ Does not exist


in connection with this RFP which might impair Respondent’s ability to perform if awarded the Professional Services contract. A conflict of interest includes any familial or business relationships that the Respondent, the proposed subcontractors, and/or their principals have with City of New Orleans’ officials or employees.

[Note: If a conflict(s) of interest exists and/or may exist, attach a letter describing the nature of the conflict or potential conflict, the parties involved, and why there is or may be a conflict.]

Name of Respondent

Respondent Representative (Signature)

(Print or type name) (Address)

______

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 15


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 16 of 19

Sworn to and subscribed before me, _______________, Notary Public, this _____day of
_______________, 2012.
____________________________________ Notary Public (signature)
 Notary ID#/Bar Roll #
 State of 
 Parish/County of 


New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 16


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 17 of 19

Request for Proposals
 to Serve as

CONSENT DECREE COURT MONITOR
 of the New Orleans Police Department
 SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
 Attachment “D”

IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS

See attachment

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 17


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 18 of 19


IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS

STATE OF

PARISH/COUNTY OF

Before me, the undersigned authority, came and appeared
 , who, being first duly sworn, deposed and said that:


1. He/She is the

and authorized representative of , hereafter called “Respondent.”

2. Respondent submits the attached Proposal in response to the Request for Proposals to serve as the Consent Decree Court Monitor of the New Orleans Police Department.

3. The Respondent hereby identifies the following persons, natural or artificial, who are retained by Respondent at the time the attached Proposal is submitted and who are expected to perform work as subcontractors in connection with the Respondent’s work. Respondent hereby acknowledges and agrees that when new subcontractors not previously named are added to the Project, they must be promptly identified consistent with the RFP and the requirements of the Consent Decree in this matter.

List Subcontractors:

____________________________________ Person(s) and Company Name (if applicable

____________________________________

____________________________________

[Please attach additional pages if necessary.]

Name of Respondent

Respondent Representative (Signature)

(Print or type name) (Address)

______

New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 18


Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 146-2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 19 of 19

Sworn to and subscribed before me, _______________, Notary Public, this _____day of
_______________, 2012.
____________________________________ Notary Public (signature)
 Notary ID#/Bar Roll #
 State of 
 Parish/County of 


New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Monitor RFP

Page 19


 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff

*

NUMBER: 12-1924

v.

*

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

*

SECTION: E

De~ndant

*

* * *
ERRATA SHEET REGARDING PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

I . Caption changed to reflect case number and section assignment.

2.

~ 4: commas added before and after the phrase "and the claims arose in."

3. ~ I0: The following sentence was added at the end of the paragraph: "The assertion of

such privilege would be decided by the court with jurisdiction over the action, motion, subpoena,

or request for disclosure."

4.

~ 14.a): "a" added before "knife or stick. "

5. ~ 14.h): hanging hyphen in "well-documented" moved to next line.

6.

~ 14.r): "firearms" changed to "firearm."

7.

~ 14.vvv) (formally uuu): numbering fixed.

8.

~ 17: "policy" and "procedure" each made plural.

9.

~ 21: " s" added to two instances of"object."

10. ~ 21: "Stop" changed to "Stops" and "Arrest" changed to "Arrests."

11. ~ 22: numbering format changed to be consistent with rest of Consent Decree.

12. ~ 25: "s" added to " report" to agree with subject.

13. ~ 28: comma added after "overarching."

14. ~ 3 1: "pu rsu it" changed to "pursuits."

15. ~ 40: added "or entering a confined space, such as a crawl-space."

16. ~ 43: added "except where the suspect is hiding in a confined space (e.g. a crawl space)

and refuses to surrender." Restructured paragraph to make clearer.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 2 of 6
17. § III introductory paragraph: "effect" changed to "affect." 18. ~59: comma removed after "subject." 19. ~ 65.c): additional space added after colon. 20. ~ 65.c): "a member" changed to "members." 21. ~ 70: "SOD's" changed to " the Special Operations Division's." 22. ~ 72: hanging hyphen in "after-action" moved to next line. 23. ~ 76: comma removed after "uniform." 24. ~ 82: hanging hyphen in "force-related" moved to next line. 25. ~ 86.e): extra space removed after "statement." 26. ~ 97: comma added after "as necessary." 27. ~ 10 I: "any" added after " and." 28. ~ I0 I: commas changed to semicolons. 29. ~ 107.d): extra space before "including" removed. 30. ~ I08.d): extra space before "If' removed. 3 J. ~~ 113.t)(2) and (5): font of apostrophes changed. 32. ~ 115: "of the Effective Date" added after "Within three years." 33. ~ 117: hanging hyphen in " lecture-based" moved to next line. 34. ~ 118: hanging hyphen in "in-service" moved to next line. 35. ~ 119: extra space removed between "to" and "offer." 36. ~ 125: "or gender identity" added after "sexual orientation" to mirror language used in ~ 127. 37. ~ 132: comma added after "privacy." 38. ~ 149.t): " the apparent" added before "race" to make consistent with preceding clause. 39. ~ 151: hanging hyphen in "non-disciplinary" moved to next line. 40. ~ 154: hyphen added to "personally identifying." 41. ~ 162.b): "and" removed after semicolon. 42. ~ 162.e): semicolon moved inside quotation marks. 43. ~ 164: hanging hyphen in " pre-interview" moved to next line. 44. ~ I77: hanging hyphen in "non-enforcement" moved to next line. 45. ~ 181: numbering format changed to be consistent with rest of Consent Decree.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 6
46. ~ 187: extra space removed before " Where." 47. ~ 189.f): " Communication" changed to " Communications." 48. ~ I91: extra space removed between "and" and " this." 49. ,1 191.e): modified so that it is two separate paragraphs. " Basic command of Spanish or
Vietnamese, for officers assigned to Districts with significant LEP populations" now in~ 19l.f).
50. ~ 20 l.a): period changed to semicolon. 51. ~ 206: "ISB" changed to " Investigative Services Bureau." 52. ~ 208: hanging hyphen in "drug-facilitated" moved to next line. 53. ~ 2 I2: comma added after " policies and procedures." 54. ~ 214: " has" changed to "have. " 55. ~ 217: "of ' changed to "or." 56. ~ 220: "4"changed to "four." 57. ~ 228: semicolon changed to comma and "and" added between "developing community partnerships" and "participating in public meetings." 58. ~ 224: extra space removed between "adequate" and " number." 59. ~ 226: " 8" changed to "eight." 60. ~ 233: " publically" changed to " publicly." 61. ~ 241: extra space removed after "Civil Service." 62. ~ 242: hanging hyphen in "non-discriminatory" moved to next line. 63. ~ 245: "the" added before "recruit training academy" and "and" removed before "all inservice training." 64. ~ 247: hanging hyphen in "Department-Wide" moved to next line and capital "W" in "Department-Wide" changed to lowercase. 65. ~ 248: extra space before "two" removed. 66. ~ 248: "and" added before "a representative from the FBI, the District Attorney's office, the USAO, and the City Attorney's Office." 67. ~ 25 I: comma added after "federal law." 68. ~ 254: "XlX.E." changed to "Xli.E." 69. ~ 255: hanging hyphen in "in-service" moved to next line.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 4 of 6
70. ~ 257: extra space before " Within" removed and commas added before and after "and incorporate the requirements of." 71. ~ 267: comma removed after " progression." 72. ~ 268: hanging hyphen in "de-escalation" moved to next line. 73. ~ 275: hanging hyphen in " field-training" moved to next line. 74. ~ 279: "dependant" changed to "dependent. " 75. ~ 282: "method" changed to "methods." 76. ~ 283: extra parentheses removed. 77. ~ 295: "twelve months" changed to "365 days" 78. ~ 296.j): semicolon changed to period. 79. ~ 300: extra space removed before "supervisor." 80. ~ 302: " twelve months" changed to "365 days" 81. ~ 305: " for officers" added so that sentence reads: The City agrees to work with Civi I Service to create opportunities for officers to be placed on the promotional list at least every two years. 82. ~ 313: hanging hyphen in " non-disciplinary" moved to next line. 83. ~ 314: extra space before "All" removed. 84. ~ 319.f): comma removed after " records." 85. ~ 320: extra space removed before "or similar charges." 86. ~ 328g: "consistent with NOPD 's state-approved document retention schedule" added to clarify that provision is consistent with Louisiana law. 87. ~ 333: " and" added before "shall remain independent from actual or perceived influence by NOPD." 88. ~ 358: period removed after "FTO." 89. ~ 363.e): comma removed after "employer." 90. ~ 364: hyphen added to "seven day." 91. ~ 365: hyphen added to "24 hour." 92. ~ 367: extra space removed after "Registration." 93. ~ 367.a): "a" removed before "secondary employment." 94. ~ 376: extra space removed before " infraction."
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 5 of 6
95. ~ 381: extra spaces removed before "Officers." 96. ~ 383: extra spaces removed after "365" and between "NOPD" and "agrees." 97. ~ 383: semicolon added between "failure to take a complaint" and " failure to report misconduct or complaints." 98. ~ 41 I: comma removed after "officer." 99. ~ 414: extra space removed after " resolve." I00. ~ 420: " ten" changed to "1 0." I01. ~ 421: comma removed after "consistent." I02. ~ 426: In last sentence of paragraph, "shall" changed to "should." 103. §XVII I. Introductory Paragraph: comma removed after " trends." I04. ~ 433: " toward" added between " progress" and "meeting." I05. ~ 435: "and " added before "business and religious groups." I06. ~ 437.a): extra space removed before "community."
107. § XVIII.E: extra space removed before "Community."
I08. ~ 443: "wi ll" changed to " may." 109. ~ 445: comma added after "responsibilities." I I0. ~ 448.a): "Force" changed to "force." I I I. ~ 448.a)(4): "Force" changed to "force" and comma added after " policy. " I I2. ~ 448.b): "the" changed to "The ." I 13. ~ 448.b)(2): comma added after"i.e." I 14. ~ 448.c)(l): extra space removed before " particular." I I5. ~ 448.c)(2): " homicide" changed to " Homicide." 116. ~ 448.c)(3): hyphen added to " non LEP" and comma added after "NOPD." 117. ~ 450: changed" I2 months" to "365 days" I I8. ~ 451: period added after "constitutional policing" and extra space removed . I 19. ~ 454: "may" changed to "shall" so that sentence reads: "The Monitor shall coordinate with the lPM in conducting these use of force and misconduct investigation reviews." 120. ~ 456: "and shall submit such stipulation to the Court for approval" added after "accordingly."
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 159-2 Filed 01/11/13 Page 6 of 6
12l. ~ 459: "may" changed to "shall " so that sentence reads: "Jn conducti ng its assessments, reviews, and audits, and in developing its monitoring plan and review methodologies, the Monitor shall coordinate and confer with the IPM to avoid duplication of effort and expenses." 122. § XJX.J: " between" changed to "Between." 123. ~ 460: comma added and "and" removed after "S uperintendent." 124. ~ 461: comma added after "reports." 125. ~ 463: "Monitoring" changed to "Monitor." 126. ~ 469: "and" removed before "the City 's assessment of the status of its progress." 127. ~ 469: "six months" changed to " I80 days" 128. ~ 470: extra space removed after " hearings." 129. ~ 477: removed: "The Parties have agreed to use New Orleans' procurement process in selecting the Monitor," as the process has been revised consistent with the Court's instruction.
6

 
 CCaassee: 21:31-23-0c1v6-10192D4-oScMum-JeCntW: 00D51o2c2u6m3e2n0t7265PaFgiele: d1 06/D0a6t/e13FilePda: g0e6/105o/f23013

IN 'I'H 1<: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EASTEUR.NS.DDISISTTRRICICTTOCfOLUORUTISIANA
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
lUI: JUN -62013 q

WILLIAM W. BlEVINS

No. 13-30161

CLERK

~y 1'J..· ,q.;l,'-I.[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellee United States filed suit against appellant City of New Orleans ("the City") alleging various illegal practices by the New Orleans Police Department. The same date the suit was filed, the parties presented the district court with a proposed Consent Decree. The district court subsequently adopted the Consent Decree and entered it as its final judgment in the action on January 11, 2013. The City thereafter moved the district court to vacate the Consent Decree. The court denied the City's motion. The City appealed, and also moved the district court to stay implementation of the
::0QIl._---­ :_:xF: fti-"---- Consent Decree pending appeal. The district court denied that motion as well _ _ _C~mOep ~ Doc. No. _ __

CCaasese: 123:1-320-1cv6-10192D4o-cSuMm-eJnCtW: 005D1o2c2u6m32e0n7t 265PagFeil:e2d 06D/0a6te/1F3ilePd:a0g6e/025o/2f0313
and the City now re-urges its motion for stay pending appeal before this court.
We review a district court's denial of a stay pending appeal for abuse of discretion. Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 983 F.2d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1992). The factors for evaluating the appropriateness of a stay pending appeal are well-established: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). "The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [judicial] discretion." Nken v. Holder, 556
u.s. 418, 433-34 (2009).
The City has failed to meet this burden. The City's motion fails to address, let alone satisfy, the requisite strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal. The City similarly has failed to demonstrate that the other three factors weigh in favor of granting a stay.
IT IS ORDERED that the temporary order entered May 30, 2013 is hereby VACATED and the City's motion for stay pending appeal is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal shall be expedited.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 265 Filed 06/06/13 Page 3 of 3

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court ofAppeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

June OS, 2013
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
No. 13-30161, USA v. City of New Orleans USDC No. 2:12-CV-1924
Enclosed is an order entered in this case.
In light of this order, the briefing schedule will proceed as follows:
Appellant's opening brief will be due June 26, 2013_
Appellees' brief will be due July 11, 2013.
Any reply brief will be due July 18, 2013.
The Court has tentatively set oral argument for the week of August 5, 2013. You will receive a printed calendar prior to the sitting.
THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO ADHERE TO THE ABOVE EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY EXTENSIONS OF TIME IN ORDER TO ENSURE AVAILABILITY OF THE BRIEFS TO THE COURT PRIOR TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT DATE.
Additionally, appellant is reminded that the $455 appeal docketing and filing fees have not yet been paid. Failure to pay the fees by the current deadline of June 13, 2013, will result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute.
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: ~~?'r
Alllson G. Lopez, Deputy Clerk 504-310-7702
Ms_ April J. Anderson Mr_ Brian Joseph Capitelli Ms. Emily Anna Gunston Ms. Angela Macdonald Miller Ms. Jessica Dunsay Silver Ms. Sharonda R. Williams Mr. William W. Blevins

 
 Office of the Assistant Attorney General

u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Washington, D. C. 20530

El Honorable Mitchell l. Landrieu Alcaldia Oficina 2E04, 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70112
Ref.: Investigaci6n del Departamento de Policia de Nueva Orleans 
 Nueva Orleans, Luisiana 

Estimado Alcalde Landrieu:
Por la presente, deseamos hacerle llegar el resultado de la investigaci6n del Departamento de Policia de Nueva Orleans ("NOPD") realizada por la Division de Derechos Civiles conforme a la Ley de control de los delitos violentos y orden publico de 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141, la Ley general de control de la delincuencia y de seguridad de la via publica de 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, y el Titulo VI de la Ley de derechos civiles de 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Estas leyes otorgan autoridad al Departamento de lusticia ("DOl") de los Estados Unidos para buscar reparaci6njudicial declaratoi'ia 0 equitativa para remecliar lospatrones 0 practicas de conducta de las autoridades policiales que privan a los individuos de sus derechos, privilegios 0 inmunidades garantizadas por la Constituci6n 0 las leyes de los Estados Unidos. Dichas leyes tambien otorgan autoridad al DOl para buscar el retiro de los fondos federales de los departamentos de policia que discriminan a base de la raza, color, religi6n, sexo 0 nacionalidad . de origen.
E15 de mayo de 2010, usted solicit6la asistencia del DOl para que la Ciudad pudiera realizar la "transformaci6n completa" del NOPD. E117 de mayo de 2010, la Divisi6n de Derechos Civiles notific6 ala Ciudad su intenci6n de investigar el NOPD conforme a los estatutos arriba mencionados. Nuestra investigacion ha sido minuciosa, amplia e independiente. Hemos realizado una evaluaci6n completa del Departamento y examinado una amplia gama de politicas, practicas y asuntos. Las investigaciones de patrones 0 practicas civiles tienen un enfoque y norma legal distintos de las investigaciones penales y nuestra investigaci6n se mantuvo separada de las acciones penales federales en curso de oficiales del NOPD. Durante esta investigaci6n, ademas de contratar expertos en practicas policiales especificamente para este proyecto, consultamos con expertos del Departamento de lusticia, incluso de la Oficina de Programas ludiciales, la Oficina para Combatir la Violencia contra la Mujer, la Oficina de

2 


Servicios Policiales Orientados a la Comunidad, la Oficina de Justicia Juvenil y Prevenci6n de la Delincuencia, y la Iniciativa de Acceso a la Justicia. Los expertos externos, junto con la colaboraci6n continua de varios componentes dentro del Departamento, nos han permitido brindar asistencia tecnica al NOPD y diagnosticar los problemas sistemicos con alta precisi6n.

Recibimos plena cooperaci6n de la Ciudad y del Departamento de Policia durante el curso de nuestra inve$tigaci6n. Ademas, no podriamos haber completado nuestra investigaci6n sin los aportes de muchos miembros y grupos comunitarios que se reunieron con nosotros los
fines de semana y hasta tarde en la noche para asegurar que tuviesemos una imagen 10 mas
completa posible de Nueva Orleans y su Departamento de Policia. El Servicio de Relaciones Comunitarias del Departamento de Justicia moder6 muchas de estas reuniones, permitiendo que los miembros de la comunidad expresaran sus inquietudes y propuestas.

Agradecemos tambien la participaci6n de oficiales de policia'y del sindicato policial. Obviamente enos desean formar parte de una fuerza policial de categoria mundial y reconocen que los delitos de algunos oficiales han debilitado la confianza del publico en el NOPD. Apreciamos las observaciones y sugerencias constructivas de muchos de los oficiales con los que nos reunimos.

Durante toda nuestra investigaci6n, el Superintendente Ronal Serpas ha estado trabajando

para mejorar el servicio policial en Nueva Orleans y hacerlo mas eficaz y responsable de sus

actos. Encontramos que elliderazgo de la Ciudad y del NOPD entienden que un servicio policial

constitucional e inteligente esta directamente vinculado con la prevenci6n de delitos y la

restauraci6n de 1a confianza plj.blica en e1 NOPD. La Ciudad y el Departamento reconocen que

deben proporciohar oficiales con las 'politicas, capacitaci6n, supervisi6n y elementos necesarios

para vigilar en forma uniforme con eficacia, integridad y profesionalismo -y que los oficiales

deben asumir responsabilidad cuando no 10 hagan. Bemos hecho comentarios en tiempo real al

Superintendente Serpas durante el curso de nuestra investigaci6n. El ha recibido bien nuestras

observaciones y sugerencias, y ya ha implementado varias reformas que son ccimponentes

importantes de la transformaci6n del NOPD.

.

La dirigencia de la Ciudad y del Departamento, ademas de otras personas en el NOPD, tambien han reconocido que para que los esfuerzos del servicio policial del NOPD sean exitosos, todos los segmentos de la diversa comunidad racial, etnica y socioecon6mica de Nueva Orleans deben sentirse asociados con la policia para mantener sus vecindarios seguros. Para lograr este cambio cultural, el Departamento debera comunicarse y proteger a todas las comunidades de la Ciudad, tratarlas con dignidad y trabajar diligentemente para impedir y resolver los problemas que causan delitos en sus vecindades. Esta reforma fundamental requerira 1a colaboraci6n del sistema de justicia penal completo, inclusive la Fiscalia, la Oficina de Defensores Publicos, los tribunales, el Departamento del Alguacil y el Sistema de Justicia Juvenil. Esperamos que los resultados y recomendaciones en esta carta ayuden en este esfuerzo de importancia critica.

Los desafios que enfrenta e1 Departamento de Policia de Nueva Orleans son serios, sistemicos, de amplio alcance y profundamente arraigados. Encontramos causa razonable para creer que existen los siguientes patrones 0 practicas de conducta inconstitucional y/o violaciones delas leyes federales:

3 

• Usa de fuerza excesiva; • Paradas, busquedas y arrestos inconstitucionales; • Predisposicion en el servicio policial:
o Discriminacion racial, etnica y contra las lesbianas, gay, bisexuales y transexuales (LGBT);
o Discriminacion por nacionalidad de origen: falla del sistema para ofrecer servicios policiales eficaces a personas que no hablan el idioma ingles con fluidez; y
o Predisposicion delservicio policial encuanto a sexo: fracaso del sistema para investigar agresiones sexuales y violencia domestica.
Tambien encontramos que existen varias pnicticas antiguas y afianzadas dentro del NOPD que causan 0 aportan a los patrones 0 practicas de conducta inconstitucional que observamos. Estas practicas incluyen:
• Sistemas fallidos para el reclutamiento, ascenso y evaluacion de oficiales; • Capacitacion inadecuada; • Supervision inadecuada; • Sistemas ineficaces de registro, investigacion y adjudicacion de quejas; • Un sistema "Paid Detail" fallido; • Falla en brindar servicios policiales orientados a la comunidad; • Servicio inadecuado de asistencia y apoyo a oficiales; y • Falta de suficiente supervision comunitaria.
Para lograr su objetivo de la "transformacion completa" del NOPD, es fundamental identificar, entender y considerar lasinfracciones constitucionales y legales mencionadas anteriormente, y las pnicticas que han causado dichas pnicticas 0 aportado a elIas. Por ejeinplo, generalmente las fallas de la supervision de primera linea y la ausencia de mecanismos intemos de rendici6h de cuentas son factores que contribuyen a los patrones 0 pnicticas inconstitucionales que observamos. Ademas, el sistema "Paid Detail" en la forma estructurada 'actual tiene grandes defectos. Con demasiada frecuencia, el sistema "Detail" del NOPD invita a la corrupcion y actos ilegales, y fomenta la conducta inconstitucional. Sera imposible transformar la cultura del NOPD en forma sostenible a menos que se reforme drasticamente el sistema "Detail". En forma similar, el enfasis ex:cesivo del NOPD en la cantidad de arrestos y contactos durante el turno, y no en la calidad de los encuentros y arrestos, crea incentivos perversos paraviolar la Constitucion.
Si bien el huracan Katrina tuvp un efecto devastador, riuestra investigacion ha revelado que estas graves deficiencias existian mucho antes de la tormenta. A pesar de los esfuerzos previos y recientes del Departamento para implementar una reforma, los resultados de nuestra

4 

investigaci6n, la cual se concentr6 en la conducta de los oficiales durante los ultimos dos afios, indican que los problemas persisten y que una reforma sostenible exigini un periodo sustancial de trabajo arduo y dificil. Presentamos nuestras recomendaciones no s6lo para mejorar la relaci6n entre el NOPD y la comunidad mas amplia de Nueva Orleans, sino tambien para asegurar que la Ciudad y el NOPD brinden a sus oficiales el apoyo que elIos necesitan para actuar sin riesgos y con mayor eficacia cada dia.
Si bien nuestra investigaci6n se concentr6 en identificar la existencia y el alcance de patrones 0 practicas de conducta inconstitucional dentro del NOPD, asi como las causas subyacentes a aquellos patrones 0 practicas, tambien buscamos considerar su solicitud de ayudar al Departamento a "determinar c6mo prevenir, detectar y disciplinar la mala conducta e introducir las mejores pnicticas para la seguridad publica". Nuestras recomendaciones responden a esta solicitud y consideran practicas que otras agenciasencuentran eficaces -las mejores practicas- ademas.de las circunstancias unicas de Nueva Orleans y el NOPD. .
Esperamos reunirnos con usted, su personal yia dirigencia del NOPD para explicar nuestros resultados y contestar cualquier pregunta que puedan tener. Nuestro 6bjetivo es que este Informe este disponible a todas las partes interesadas y continuaremos nuestra extensa
\
comunicaci6n con el publico de modo que todas las partes tengan la oportunidad de expresar sus reacciones a nuestros resultados y recomendaciones para el futuro. Continuaremos colaborando con usted en el uso de estos· resultados como el cimiento para el desarrollo de un plan completo de reforma sostenible que reduzca los delitos, garantice el respeto de la Constituci6n y las leyes, y restaure la confianza del publico en el NOPD.
Sabemos pOI' los esfuerzos previos de refonna que este plan debe inc1uir supervisi6n independiente ordenada pOI' los tribunales para asegurar que se irhplementen y mantengan las reformas necesarias. Estamos confiados que podemos negociar los terminos de un decreto de consentimiento que incorpore los elementos esenciaies de este plan de reforma sostenible y que ofrezca una herramienta vital de rendici6n de cuentas para el Departamento y el publico.
Si bien los desafios a los que se enfrenta el NOPD son considerables, observamos una dinamica en Nueva Orleans que da esperanza y optimismo para el futuro. Los residentes de Nueva Orleans tienen un compromiso compartido muy s6lido con la Ciudad que va mas alla de las razas, c1ases y vecindades. Los miembros de la comunidad y los oficiales expresaron un profundo orgullo de Nueva Orleans y una determinaci6n para expandir sus numerosos beneficios y mejorarlos. Esta dedicaci6n mutua a Nueva Orleans por si sola no es suficiente: los recursos, cooperaci6n, una dedicaci6n a los principios, un plan completo y arduo trabajo son igualmente importantes. Pe~o este compromiso comtin con la Ciudad brinda un cimiento s6lido sobre el cual transformar el NOPD..

5 

Esperamos trabajar con usted y la comunidad de Nueva Orleans en las proximas semanas y meses y disefiar un plan completo y sostenible a fin de evaluar nuestros resultados y buscar maneras de reducir los delitos, asegurar un servicio policial constitucional y aumentar la . confianza de la comunidad en el Departamento de Policia de N\leva Orleans.
Atentamente,
CL
Thomas E. Perez Fiscal Adjunto Division de Derechos Civiles
copias: Superintendente Ronal Serpas, 
 Departamento de Policia de Nueva Orleans 


 
 u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D. C. 20530

Ngai Mitchell J. Landrieu Van Phong Thi TrU'O'ng Suite 2E04, 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70112
V/v: Bi~u Tra Clla Sa Canh Sat New Orleans 
 New Orleans, Louisiana 

Kinh Thua Thi Truong Landrieu:
ChUng toi vi~t thu nay d~ bao cao v~ cac phat hi~n trong CU9C di~u tra cua Phan Ban Dan Quy~n thu9C Sa Canh Sat New Orleans (New Orleans Police Department - "NOPD") chi@u thea B~o Lu~t Ki~m Soat T9i Ac B~o B9ng va Thi Hanh Phap Lu~t nam 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141, B~o Lu~t di§u khi~n t9i ac va An Toan Buemg Ph6 nam 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d, va T\ra f)~ VI cua B~a Lu~t Dan Quy~n nam 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Cac lu~t nay cha B9 Tu Phap (Department af Justice - "DOJ") Hoa Ky quy~n co dUQ"c cac bi~n phap cong minh ho~c giai thich dUQ'c d~ sua sai cho cac m~u mvc ho~c thong l~ ung xu cua liha.n vien cong lvc thea do mac do~t cua cac ca nhan cac quy~n, d~c quy~n, ho~c miSn trir rna Hi~n Phap ho~c lu~t phap HaaKy dft baa dam, ho~c d~ tim cach rut l~i ngan quy lien bang danh cha cac cO' quan canh sat co sv ky thi dva tren chung t9c, mau da, ton giao, giai tinh ho~c qu6c gia g6c.
Vao ngay 5 thang Nam, 2010, quyvi dft yeu c~u DOJ giup cho Thanh Ph6 trong vi~c "bi6n dbi hOEm toan" NOPD. Vao ngay 17 Thang Nam, 2010, Phan Ban Dan Quy~n dft bao cha Thanh Ph6 bi~t y dinh cua minh trong vi~c di~u tra NOPD chi~u thea cac d~o hl~t neu tren. CU9c di~u tra cua chUng toi thfru dao, r9ng rfti, va d9c l~p. ChUng toi dft ti~n hanh duy~t xet CO' QUall tir tren xu6ng duai, va dft xem xet r9ng rai v~ cac chinh sach, thong l~, va cac v§.n d~ giai quySt. Cac cU9c di~u tra v~ m~u mvc ho~c thong l~ v~ dan sv co m9t tieu chuAn phap ly va chu trQng khac vai cac cU9c di~u tra hinh sv va cU9c di~u tra cua chUng toi dUQ"c gift rieng bi~t hk vai cac truy t6 v~ hinh sv cua lien bang hi~n dang ti6p diSn cac vien chuc cua NOPD. Trong su5t cU9c di~u tra nay, ngaai vi~c luu d\lng cac chuyen gia v~ thong l~ cua canh sat C\l th~ la cha dv an nay, chUng toi dft tham khao vai cac chuyen gia thu9C B9 Tu Phap, bao g6m Van Phong Cac Chuang Trinh Cong Ly, Van Phong v~ B~o B9ng B5i Vai Ph\l Nft, Van Phong Cac Dich V\l Canh Sat Huang V~ C9ng £)6ng, Van Phong v~ Cong Ly Thanh Thi6u Nien va Ngan Ngira Ph~ Phap, va Dv Lu~t Ti6p C~ Cong LY. Vi~c hoi y ki~n chuyen mon ben ngaai nay cUng vai sv ti6p tl,lc hQ"P tac vai cac thanh ph~n khac nhau trong CO' Quan dft giup chUng toi cung cfrp sv trQ" giup ky thu~t cha NOPD, va chAn doan cac tra ng~i v~ h~ th5ng vai sv chuAn xac cao.

2 

Chung Wi duqc S\1 hQ'P tac hoan toan cua Thanh Ph5 va SCY Canh Sat trong su5t qua trinh di6u tra. Ngoai ra, chung toi khong the hoan t~t duqc cui)c di6u tra neu khong co S\1 dong gop
va cua nhi6u thanh vien va cac nhom trong ci)ng d6ng la nhilng nguai da g~p gO- chUng toi vao
nhihlg ngay cu5i tu§n nhihlg bu6i t5i thau dem de dam bao la chUng toi co duqc mi)t cai nhin toan canh v6 New Orleans va Ca Quan Canh Sat cua hQ co the duqc. Dich V\l Lien H~ Ci)ng E>6ng cua Bi) Tu Phap da tlJ-O sl,t thu~n ti~n cho cac bu6i hQP nay, con giupcho cac thanh vien ci)ng d6ng len ti6ng bay to cac quan tam va d6 nght cua hQ.
Chung toi cling bi6t an v6 S\1 tham gia cua cac vien chuc canh sat cac dp va nghi~p doan canh sat. HQ ro rang la mu5n tham gia vao ll,tc luqng canh sat thui)c tfim cO- th6 gi6i, va thua nh~n dng hanh di)ng sai trai cua mi)t s5 vien chuc da lam nao nUng long tin cua cong chung nai NOPD. Chung toi danh gia cao cac quan sat va d6 nghico tinh xay d\lng cua nhi6u vien chuc canh sat rna chung toi da g~p.
Trong su5t cui)c di6u tra cua chl"mg toi, Gicim E>5c Canh Sat Ronal Serpas da lam vi~c de cai thi~n cong vi~c canh sat tlJ-i New Orleans de lam cho hilu hi~u va c6 trach nhi~m han. Chung toi th~y r~ng Thanh Ph5 va ban lanh dlJ-o NOPD hieu r~ng vi~c b5 tri l\1c luqng canh sat hqp hi6n, khon ngoan la nh~m trl,tc ti6p vao vi~c phong ngua ti)i ac va khoi ph\lc llJ-i long tin cua cong chung dM v6i NOPD. Thanh Ph5 va Ca Quan thua nh~ rkg hQ phai cung dp cho cac vien chuc canh sat cac chinh sach, dao tlJ-O, gicim sat, va cac co' sCY·c§n thi6t de lam vi~c cua canh sat luon luon duqc hfru hi~u, liem chinh va chuyen mon-va bui)c cac vien chuc canh sat phai chiu trach nhi~m ldri hQ khong lamdi6u nay. Trong su5t qua trinh di6u tra cua chUng toi, chUng toi da co cac gop y tlJ-i ch6 cho Gicim E>5c Canh Sat Serpas. Ong da ti6p nh~n cac quan sat va d6 nghi cua chung toi, va da thi hanh mi)t s5 cai cach la cac thanh ph§.n qUan trQng trong vi~c bien d6i NOPD.
Thanh Ph5 va lanh dlJ-o Ca Quan, cling nhu nhung nguai khac tlJ-i NOPD, cling da xac nh~ rkg de cac n6 l\1c canh sat cua NOPD duqc thanh cong, mQi phan kIm thui)c ci)ng d6ng da dlJ-ng v6 chung ti)c, s~c ti)c va kinh te xa hi)i cua New Orleans phai cam th~y la hQ hgp tac v6i canhsat trong vi~c giu cho khu xom cua hQ an toano Vi~c dlJ-t duqc S\1 dai chuyen v6van hoa nay se Qoi hoi Ca Quan phai tham gia va bao v~ cho mQi ci)ng d6ng cua Thanh Ph5, d5i xu v6i hQ v6i sl,t ton trQng phfun gia, va lam vi~c Cful mfin de ngan ngua va giai quy6t cac v~n d6 gay ra ti)i ac trong kIm xom cua hQ. Cui)c cai cach ca ban nay se doi hoi phai co cac n6 l\1c hgp tac cua toan bi) h~ th5ng cong ly hinh s\1, bao g6m Van Phong Bi~n Ly Qu~, Van Phong Bi~n Hi)Cong
Ci)ng, Toa An, Ban Canh Sat Truang va H~ Th5ng Cong Ly Thanh Thiell Nien. Chung toi hy
vQng rkg cac phat hi~n va d6 nght trong thu nay se giup vao n6 l\1c quan trQng d~c bi~t nay.
.Cac thach thuc rna NOPD phai tr\rc di~n co tfim muc ri)ng lan, co h~ th5ng, va bam ch~c c6i rS. Chung toi th~y co ly do chinh dang de tin r~ng co cac mfiu m\1c ho~c thong l~ b~t hgp hien vaJho~c cac vi phlJ-m d6n lu~t lien bang sau day:
• DUng l\1C qua dang; • Ch~n b~t, l\lc soat, va b~t b6 b~t hgp hien; • Lam vi~c canh sat v6i thanh lden:

3
o Ky thi v~ chung tQc, s~c tQc va nguai d6ng tinh luySn ai va cai gi6ng (LGBT); o Ky thi v~ qu6c gia g6c-sl,! th~t b:~ti v~ h~ th6ng trong vi~c cung c~p cac dich V\l
canh sat hilu hi~u cho nhUng nguai ySu Anh Ngfr; va o Lam vi~'c canh sat c6 thanh kiSn v~ giai tinh-sl,! th~t b~i v~ h~ th6ng trong vi~c
diSu tra vS cac hanh hung tinh d\lc va b~o hanh gia dinh.
'Chung toi con th~y r&ng mQt s6 cac thong l~ lau dai va c6 hliu nQi trong NOPD gay ra ho~c g6p ph~n vao cac m~u ml,!c ho~c thong l~ b~t hQ'P hiSn rna chung toi quan sat duQ'c. Cac thong l~ nay bao g6m:
• H~ th6ng th~t b~i trong vi~c tuy~n mQ, thang chuc va danh gia vien chuc canh sat; • Dao t~o thiSu s6t; • Gicim sat thiSu s6t; • Cac h~ th6ng tiSp nh~n than phiSn, di~u tra va phan xu khong hliu hi~u; • H~ th6ng Luang D~c Phai th~t b~i; • Khong lam vi~c canh sat c6 khuynh huang cQng d6ng; • Cac dich V\l trq giup va he> trQ' cua canh sat thiSu s6t; va • Gicim sat trong cQng d6ng thiSu s6t.
D~ d~t duQ'c m\lc tieu Clla quyvi v~ vi~c "biSn d6i hoan toan" NOPD, b~t bUQc phai nh~ ra, hi~u va giai quySt cho cac vi ph~ ca v~ hiSn phap l~ phap ly neu tren, va eac thong l~ da gay ra ho~c g6p ph~n vao cac vi ph~. Thi d\l, thuang thi, vi~c khong giam sat (y m~t ti~n tieu, va thiSu v~ng cac Co' c~u giai trinh hfru hi~u trong nQi bQ, la cac ySu t6 chinh g6p phk vao eac m~u ml,!c ho~c thong l~ b~t hQ'p hiSn rna chung toi da quan sat duqc. Ngoai ra, h~ th6ng Luang f)~c Phai, nhu duQ'c du truc hi~n nay, c6 Sl,! sai l~m r~t Ian lao. H~ th6ng f)~c Phai nay cua NOPD xay ra qua thuang d~ dSn Sl,! suy d6i va c6 hanh dQng phi phap, nuoi du5ng vi~c hanh xu b~t hQ'P hiSn. Se khong th~ biSn d6i l~ l6i Clla NOPD thea mQt ki~u cach giu duQ'c lau dai tru khi h~ th6ng f)~c Phai duqc cai each dang k~. TuO'ng tl,! NOPD nh~ m~ qua dang dSn s6 lUQ'llg b~t ba va cac lien l~c ngoai hi~n truang, han la ch~t lUQ'llg cua cac cUQc ch~ tran va b~t ba, t~o ra cac xu huang l~ch l~c vi ph~ dSn HiSn Phap.
, Chung toi nhin nh~n Sl,! tham h~i cua Bao Katrina, cUQc di~u tra clla chung toi da cho th~y la nhung thiSu s6t nghiem trQng nay c6 ill lau truac tr~n bao. B~t k~ dSn nhung ne> ll,!c truac d6 va mai day cuaCO' Quan trong vi~c thi hanh cai t6, cac phat hi~n di~u tra clla chung toi, vai Sl,! chu trQng dSn hanh vi cua nhan vien canh sat trong hai nam qua, cho th~y la cac v~n d~ nay v~ dai d~ng va Sl,! cai each lau b~n se ck mQt thai ky dang k~ d~ lam vi~c th~t nhi~u va gay go. Chung toi khong chi dua ra cac d~ nghi d~ cai thi~n m6i quan h~ giua NOPD va cQng d6ng New Orleans rQng Ian han, rna con d~ dam bao la Thanh Ph6 va NOPD he> trq cho cac vien chuc canh sat cua hQlffii ck d~ duQ'c an toan han va hliu hi~u han me>i ngay.
Trong khi cUQc di~u tra cua chUng toi chutrQng dSn vi~c nh~ ra Sl,! hi~n huu va ph~m vi cua b~t cu m~u ml,!c ho~c thong l~ nao v~ vi~c ung xu b~t hQ'P hiSn nQi trong NOPD, vacac nguyen nhan dang sau cac m~u ml,!c ho?c thong 1~ d6, chUng toi cling con tim cach giai quySt cho yeu c~u cua quy vi v~ vi~c chung toi giup cho Co' Quan "xac dinh cach ngan ngua, phat hi~n,
va ley lu~t hanh vi sai trai cling nhu giai thi~u cac thong l~ t6t nh~t cho Sl,! an toan cong cQng."
Cac dS nghi cua chUng Wi dap ling yeu c~u nay va ghi nh~ cac thong l~ rna cac Co' quan khac

4 


thfty la hilu hi~u-th6ng l~ t6t nhftt-cung nhu cac tr~ng hu6ng doc dao cua New Orleans va NOPD.
ChUng Wi mong dugc g~p quy vi, nhan vien cua quy vi va lanh d~o cua NOPD d~ giM thich v~ cac phat hi~n cua chUng t6i va tra lai cho bftt cu cau hoi nao ma quyvi co th~ co. ChUng
t6i co y dinh l~p sful Ban Bao Cao nay cho tftt ca cac ben co long quan tam, va chung t6i se ti~p
ca t\lC lien l~c rong rai v&i cong chUng d~ tftt nhung nguai quan h~ co ca hoi dua ra cac phan Ung
cua hQ d6i v&i cac phat hi~n va cac d~ nghi cua chUng t6i d~ ti~n v~ phia tru&c.. Chung t6i se ti€p t\lC hQP tac v&i quy vi d~ dUng cac phat hi~n nay nhu n~n tang cho vi~c phat tri~n mot sa db toan di~n cho vi~c cM cach lau b~n d~ giam toi ac; dam bao S\I t6n trQng Hi~n Phap va di~u l~ lu~t phap; va kh6i ph\lc l~i long tin cua cong chUng nai NOPD.
Chung t6i bi~t mcac n6l\Ic cM cach tru&c day la sa db nay phM co S\I giam sat doc l~p,
thea l~nh toa d~ dam bao cac cai cach d.n thi~t dugc xuc ti~n vaduy tri. Chung t6i tin tucmg dmg
minh co th~ thuang lugng v~ cac di~u khoan cua mot s~c l~nh thoa thu~ thea do se ph6i hgp cac thanh ph§.n thi~t y~u cua sa db nay cho vi~c cai cach lau b~n, va cung c§.p mot lmi C\l giM trinh trQng y~u cho Ca Quan va c6ng chUng.
Trong khi cac thach thuc ma NOPD phai tf\IC di~n Ian lao, chtmg toi quan sat thfty mot
S\I nang dong aNew Orleans do la ngubn hy vQng va S\I l~c quan trong vi~c ti~n v~ pilla tru&c:
Cac cu dan cua New Orleans co mot s\Icam k~t chia se m~ me dang ghi nh~n d6i v&i Thanh .Ph6 co nhi~u chung toc, t~ng lap, va lmu xoi:n. Cac thanh vien cong dbng va cac vien chuc canh sat d~u bay to gi6ng nhau mQt ni~m kieu hanh vo bien nai New Orleans va mot S\I quy~t tam xay d\Ing tren nhi~u di~m m~nh cua no va lam cho no t6t han. S\I t~ hi~n chung nay d6i v6i New
Orleans tv no chua dugc d~y du: cac ngu6n tM nguyen, S\I hgp tac, mQt S\T t~ hi~n d6i v&i
nguyen t~c, mot k~ ho~ch toan di~n, va lam vi~c cham chi d~u quan trQng ngang nhau. Nhung S\I cam k~t chia se nay d6i v&i Thanh ph6 cung c§.p mot nSn tang vung ch~c dS d\Ia tren do ma bi~n d6iNOPD.
ChUng t6i mong dugc lam vi~c v&i quy vi va cong dbng New Orleans trong nhung tu§.n l@ va thang s~p t&i dS phat triSn mQt k~ ho~ch lau dM, tOEm di~n h~u giai quy~t cho cac phat hi~n cua chung t6i va dS tim cac phuong cach giam thi~u tQi ac, dam bao vi~c lam ca.nh sat hgp hi~n, va gia tang long tin cua cQng dbng nai Ca Quan Canh Sat New Orleans.
Than ai,
~

cc: Giam B6c Canh Sat Ronal Serpas, Sa Canh Sat New Orleans

Thomas E. Perez Ph\l Ta T6ng Chuang Ly Phan BanDan QuySn

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

BIANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD,” the “Department”) to implement the Consent Decree; to outline the City’s assessment of its progress; plans to correct any issues; and responses to any concerns that have been raised by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (“OCDM,” the “Monitor”).

Overview NOPD is making significant progress toward complying with the Consent Decree and
improving its services to the community. Below are selected highlights from the second half of 2016:
1. NOPD created and implemented a new data-driven management system entitled MAX (Management Analytics for Excellence) that is helping the Department implement and track reforms. MAX is available to the public through NOPDnews.com.

1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 2 of 18
2. The Compliance Bureau’s Audit and Review Unit is producing monthly compliance scorecards on a wide variety of Consent Decree topics such as body-worn and in-car camera usage, supervision, photographic line-ups, custodial interrogations, and crisis intervention forms. Leadership has used the audit results to improve performance on all topics. NOPD will expand its use of audits in 2017 to improve other operational areas.
3. NOPD launched its early intervention system, entitled Insight, to facilitate close and effective supervision. Insight provides supervisors with a comprehensive view of officer performance trends and prompts supervisors to act when an officer’s activities exceed designated thresholds (for example, a high number of uses of force per arrest).
4. NOPD continues to implement EPIC (Ethical Policing is Courageous), its new peer intervention program, to help officers police each other and prevent misconduct. EPIC is garnering NOPD national attention and has been featured by The New York Times, The Times-Picayune, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum.
5. NOPD created a department-wide community policing and engagement plan to incorporate community policing principles throughout the Department’s operations. In addition, NOPD conducted community engagement meetings with citizens from each district to create community policing plans tailored to each district’s needs. The plans will be finalized and implemented in 2017.
6. The Department has now certified more than 20% of patrol officers in crisis intervention. These officers respond to mental health and other crisis scenes with the goal of deescalating and securing safe outcomes for all involved parties.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 3 of 18
7. NOPD continues to implement best-practice policies on domestic violence and sexual assault. The New Orleans Family Justice Center (NOFJC) and Sexual Trauma Awareness & Response (STAR) have recognized NOPD for its response to these traumatic incidents.
8. The Department continues to collaborate with the consent decree monitors to develop high quality training materials. The training academy established a ground-breaking partnership with the Innocence Project to train NOPD detectives on proper investigative techniques. In addition, NOPD hired a full-time legal instructor to support legal instruction throughout the training curriculum.
9. NOPD has demonstrated its commitment to transparency through publishing extensive data sets on calls for service; police reports; stops and searches; uses of force; misconduct investigations; body-worn camera metadata; and in-car camera metadata.
10. NOPD presented at a national Consent Decree conference on its approach to police reform and data-driven management. Since then, multiple departments have reached out to NOPD for additional guidance on implementing reforms.
11. Citizen satisfaction with NOPD rose from 48% in 2015 to 64% in 2016 according to the annual New Orleans Crime Coalition survey.
MAX (Management Analytics for Excellence) and Compliance Audits NOPD has created and implemented a new data-driven management framework called
MAX (Management Analytics for Excellence). MAX incorporates performance metrics spanning the spectrum of a supervisor’s responsibilities, including crime, clearance rates, response times, Consent Decree compliance, and many other topics. Supervisors use MAX to ensure their unit is performing as expected, and leadership holds supervisors accountable for improving their
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 4 of 18

performance as evidenced in MAX. Department leaders and supervisors participate in weekly MAX meetings to discuss trends, recognize improvements, and troubleshoot deficiencies.
While MAX is facilitating improvements across the Department’s operations, it has proved particularly effective in facilitating compliance with Consent Decree requirements. The Compliance Bureau conducts monthly compliance audits and reports the results through MAX to communicate both proficient and deficient practices. Supervisors are then held accountable to improve their results for the next month’s compliance audits. Since June, the Compliance Bureau’s Audit and Review Unit has performed monthly reviews on supervision, custodial interrogation, photographic line-ups, body-worn cameras, in-car cameras, and crisis intervention forms. Through this iterative process, the Department has improved its compliance levels across the board, as evidenced below:

Category

Initial Score November '16 Score Increase

Body-Worn Camera

85%

99%

14%

In-Car Camera Calls For Service

74%

98%

24%

In-Car Camera Test Videos

27%

96%

69%

Photographic Line-Ups

88%

96%

8%

Custodial Interrogations

92%

95%

3%

Supervision - Paragraph 306

70%

96%

26%

Supervision - Technology

96%

100%

4%

Crisis Intervention Forms

43%

95%

52%

4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 5 of 18
The Compliance Bureau plans to audit stops, searches, and arrests along with procedural justice, among other topics, in the first half of 2017.
Insight: NOPD’s Early Intervention System While MAX depicts unit and department level trends in performance, NOPD’s new early
intervention system, entitled Insight, tracks officer level trends to facilitate close and effective supervision. Beyond simply providing supervisors with an overview of officer trends, Insight prompts supervisors to intervene when officer activity exceeds certain predetermined thresholds, possibly signaling a problematic trend. For example, if an officer has a high rate of force per arrest, the supervisor selects an intervention appropriate to the officer’s needs with the goal of improving future performance.
EPIC NOPD recently created and implemented a comprehensive peer intervention program to
help officers police each other and prevent misconduct. The program is entitled EPIC (Ethical Policing Is Courageous), and NOPD is working to infuse EPIC throughout its training curriculum. Over 60% of officers have received an eight-hour foundational EPIC training in 2016, and all officers will receive this training. EPIC training equips officers with the skills to intervene successfully in difficult situations, regardless of rank, to the benefit of themselves, other officers, and the community. In a Times-Picayune editorial, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Polite lauded NOPD for EPIC, explaining, “EPIC is more than a training module; it is a philosophy that will manifest itself throughout the NOPD's operations and interactions.”1
1 "NOPD Officers Are Holding Each Other Accountable For Their Behavior". NOLA.com. Kenneth Polite., 2017. Web. 5 Mar. 2017.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 6 of 18
EPIC is garnering national attention for its comprehensive peer intervention approach. The Police Chief, the official magazine of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), touted the department’s EPIC program in an article entitled, “An EPIC Idea by NOPD: A New Model for Ethical Policing.”2 Likewise, The New York Times and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) have all covered the innovative program.
This attention has generated considerable interest amongst other law enforcement agencies. NOPD presented on EPIC at multiple conferences, including PERF’s December 2016 conference on ICAT (Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics). Over 400 officers from more than 150 law enforcement agencies police across the country and beyond attended this training and learned about ICAT and NOPD’s EPIC program. In addition, many law enforcement agencies have contacted NOPD to learn more about the program and/or visit NOPD to see the EPIC program first hand.
Policies NOPD continues to collaborate with DOJ and OCDM to institute best practice policies
that incorporate all Consent Decree requirements. DOJ and OCDM approved 13 policies in the second half of 2016 and commented on numerous other policies that are nearing completion. The approved policies include: Chapter 1.9.1 Miranda Rights (revision); 13.35 Commendations and Awards; 34.2 Promotions and Promotion Committee; 35.1.9 Insight; 35.1.10 Early Intervention Unit; 41.3.10 Body-Worn Camera (revision); 41.6.1 Immigration Status (revision); 42.11 Custodial Interrogations; 52.2 Negotiated Settlement Agreements (revision); 55.1 Victim and Witness Assistance; 55.4 Limited English Proficiency Services (LEP); the Language Assistance
2 "An EPIC Idea By NOPD: A New Model For Ethical Policing – Police Chief Magazine". Policechiefmagazine.org. 2017. Web. 5 Mar. 2017.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 7 of 18
Plan; and Rule 5 - Restricted Activities. NOPD anticipates finalizing numerous policies in the first half of 2017.
Use of Force The Department continues to monitor the implementation of a broad array of policies
related to use of force at the end of last year. The main policy, Chapter 1.3, “Use of Force,” and 11 other subsidiary policies governing subjects such as vehicle pursuits and the use of canines and electrical weapons (Tasers) became effective on December 5, 2015. The Department continues to emphasize key tenets of those policies, such de-escalation, through day-to-day supervision, discipline, and training.
The Use of Force Review Board continues to meet monthly to review all serious uses of force and investigations by the Force Investigation Team. The Board can then order additional investigation, if necessary; determine whether the use of force violated policy; refer a case for disciplinary action; direct supervisors to take other corrective action; and determine whether a case raises additional tactical, equipment, training, or policy concerns. Ultimately, the Board votes on whether the use of force in each case was justified or not.
FIT has taken a proactive stance toward training, both for team members and new NOPD recruits. Pursuant to Consent Decree ¶ 97(b), all FIT members have received 40 hours of FITspecific training, including trainings on constitutional use of force in Baton Rouge, hosted by the State Police Training Academy. Three of the seven members of FIT have also gained certification in administering Computer Voice Stress Analysis tests. To aid in training new police recruits, FIT members attend academy classes and participate in “real-world” scenarios, to teach recruits best practices and tactics for use of force and de-escalation, as well as how to properly report force statements and witness statements. FIT also works with the training academy
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 8 of 18
indirectly by assisting the Training Video Approval Committee in selecting the body-worn camera and in-car camera videos that are shown to recruits as examples of proper and improper uses of force.
On the administrative side, FIT has worked with the Compliance Bureau and Consent Decree Monitors to clarify and document best practices and techniques in use of force, as well as reporting and investigations. Their Administrative Shooting Investigation template is in the final stages of approval by the OCDM. In addition, FIT has created a quick reference guide outlining proper handcuffing technique, as well as the responsibilities of officers and their supervisors following uses of force, specific to the level of force used.
Crisis Intervention Team NOPD trained its fourth and fifth classes of CIT officers in the second half of 2016,
bringing the total number of NOPD-trained CIT officers to 122 in compliance with the ¶ 115 requirement of training 20% of the patrol division. NOPD will continue to provide the 40-hour CIT certification class to additional officers in 2017 to increase the percentage of officers certified in CIT. The Department has also provided a CIT recertification training of eight hours to previous CIT graduates and will continue to do so for active CIT officers on an annual basis in compliance with ¶ 114.
NOPD provided foundational crisis intervention training to all officers through eight hours of in-service training in 2016 in compliance with ¶ 118. New police recruits continue to receive 16 hours of crisis intervention training in their introductory training. The Department has conducted crisis intervention trainings for call takers and dispatchers throughout the past six months and will continue to offer this training in the coming year in compliance with ¶ 119.
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 9 of 18
Stops, Searches, and Arrests and Bias-Free Policing The Compliance Bureau drafted an audit framework to regularly monitor compliance
with requirements pertaining to procedural justice, bias-free policing, and stops, searches. Beginning in 2017, NOPD will conduct monthly audits on these topics and distribute the results to the Department through MAX, which is available via NOPDnews.com. Similar audits have produced significant improvements in other areas, and NOPD will likewise use the audit results to aggressively address deficiencies and improve compliance with the Consent Decree.
Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups In response to the Monitor’s findings on custodial interrogations and photographic line-
ups, the Audit and Review Unit is conducting monthly reviews to identify deficiencies, make recommendations, and track progress over time. The results demonstrate progress toward meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree. On the whole, NOPD is consistently demonstrating greater than 95% compliance with custodial interrogation requirements and greater than 95% with nearly all photographic line-up requirements based on these internal reviews.
Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence The Office of the Consent Decree Monitor praised NOPD during a public hearing citing a
“remarkable turnaround with respect to sexual assault and domestic violence investigations.”3 Chief Mary Ann Viverette, the monitor overseeing reforms in the Special Victims Section (SVS), concluded her remarks by reiterating what was a clear theme of the hearing: “So in
3 Mins. Morgan, J. 2: August 18, 2016.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 10 of 18
conclusion, we have seen improvement since I’ve been reviewing and monitoring over the last three years in both the sexual assault area and domestic violence. I can’t say enough about the current leadership and the supervision in both units. They’re committed, they’re effective, and they deal with things seriously and quickly when I ask them to do so.”4
The Department’s approved policies on sexual assault and domestic violence continue to guide the Department’s response to these crimes. The Department will implement Chapter 42.19, “Child Abuse” and the Child Abuse Unit Standard Operating Guidelines in the first half of 2017. The Department collaborated with local subject matter experts in these fields to create these policies and will continue to work with these experts to improve NOPD’s response to these incidents.
The Special Victims Section is in the process of finalizing a training curriculum for new detectives created in collaboration with leaders of the Sexual Assault Response Team. While the Department has been working on establishing this curriculum, SVS detectives have continued to participate in available training, and the SVS Commander and partner agencies frequently host roll-call trainings on a variety of topics during weekly unit meetings.
SVS continues to utilize enhanced case tracking systems developed in collaboration with the Compliance Bureau to give supervisors and detectives a clearer picture of investigative progress. The trackers facilitate better supervision by providing overview statistics and indicating when supplemental reports are past due. The Compliance Bureau aims to incorporate these and other SVS tracking systems into MAX in 2017 to enhance the reporting options and accountability measurements available to leadership.
SVS maintains the documentation required by Consent Decree ¶¶ 206 and 207 regarding the usage of miscellaneous and unfounded designation for all relevant 2015 and 2016 incidents.
4 Id.
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 11 of 18
The Compliance Bureau will provide this documentation to OCDM in early 2017 to demonstrate compliance. The Sex Crimes Unit began participating in multidisciplinary team (“MDT”) meetings that convene relevant partners to discuss the progress of cases. in compliance with ¶ 114.
Local victim advocates have recognized NOPD’s commitment to domestic violence and sexual assault survivors. The New Orleans Family Justice Center (NOFJC) named Superintendent Harrison an NOFJC Champion for his leadership in improving the Department’s response to domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, Sexual Trauma Awareness & Response (STAR) recognized Commander Doug Eckert, who oversees the Criminal Investigations Division that includes the Special Victims Section, as an agent of change for his leadership on reforming the NOPD’s response to sexual assault. NOPD will continue to deliver a victim-centered approach to these traumatic crimes.
Community Engagement In the second half of 2016, NOPD bolstered its community policing and engagement
efforts in many ways. NOPD drafted a community policing and engagement plan to serve as a manual for officers, as well as the community, to understand and execute community engagement and policing best practices. In tandem, the Department developed a new relationship-based policing course that will be taught to all officers to reinforce core principles of community policing. The relationship-based policing course will meet all requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 226.
In addition, NOPD hosted its first-ever community engagement night out series to discuss policing priorities and problem-solving strategies with citizens from each district. With this
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 12 of 18
input, each district is creating a community-policing plan tailored to the input from the district’s citizens. Districts will share these plans with the community at NONPACC meetings, and NOPD will track implementation of each district’s initiatives to address community concerns in MAX.
NOPD continues to conduct youth dialogues at various schools throughout the city where students and police meet to discuss methods to build relationships, a requirement of Consent Decree ¶ 227. These youth dialogues have been very successful, and NOPD’s community policing and engagement plan proposes that all districts implement youth dialogues. NOPD continues to hold “coffee with cops” events in each district where the community can enjoy a cup of coffee with an officer. NOPD continues to host or participate in a multitude of other community events, such as Night Out Against Crime events throughout the city, holiday gift giveaways at police districts, and a private forums with youth and community leaders hosted by the New Orleans Pelicans. Community members can learn about these and other community policing and engagement efforts via NOPDNews.com or NOPD’s social media accounts.
Lastly, NOPD graduated its first citizen’s academy under Superintendent Harrison with 28 residents graduating. The eight-week program provides a closer look at the NOPD and the New Orleans criminal justice system. Through citizen academies, NOPD hopes to build stronger connections with members of the community.
NOPD believes its reforms and substantive community policing and engagement efforts have helped improve its relationship with the community. Citizen satisfaction with NOPD rose from 48% in 2015 to 64% in 2016 according to the annual New Orleans Crime Coalition survey. NOPD is committed to increasing its community policing and engagement efforts to continue to strengthen bonds with the community.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 13 of 18
Recruitment OCDM reviewed NOPD’s hiring practices, with assistance from the Compliance Bureau,
and identified areas for improvement in the hiring process. NOPD immediately drafted a corrective action plan to improve the process and, since then, has been working continuously to reform the process. OCDM documented both the areas for improvement as well as NOPD’s corrective action plan in a January 2017 report. Since then, NOPD has instituted another level of review for all applicants, provided additional training to background investigators, revised hiring criteria, and initiated comprehensive efforts to implement its corrective action plan and improve the hiring process as a whole. NOPD will provide additional updates on reforms to the hiring process in the next biannual report.
Academy and In-Service Training During the reporting period, the Academy completed the 2017 Training Needs
Assessment, which included research, observations, and 15 focus groups conducted by the Curriculum Director. The Training Needs Assessment identified areas of need and informed the development of the 2017 Annual Master Training Plan (AMTP). The AMTP incorporated learning objectives and priorities based on these areas of need. The Training Advisory Committee (TAC) approved the AMTP in November 2016, and Superintendent of Police Michael S. Harrison added his approval in December 2016.
The Academy team will continue working to ensure all lesson plans are reviewed and updated to reflect the learning objectives identified in the AMTP. The lesson plan evaluation form has been revised to emphasize the inclusion of key reform principles throughout the training curriculum. These principles include peer intervention (EPIC), de-escalation and crisis
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 14 of 18
intervention, procedural justice, community policing, and constitutional policing. Lesson plans that have been reviewed and approved by the Curriculum Director are provided to OCDM for review.
The Academy continues to work with partners like the District Attorney’s office and the Innocence Project to provide impactful training. The 2016 core in-service curriculum for all officers included a legal course taught by Naomi Jones of the District Attorney’s office. In addition, 183 detectives participated in a course presented by the Innocence Project, which focused on the most common causes of wrongful convictions and how to avoid these pitfalls. The Academy recently hired a full-time legal instructor, Keith Sanchez, who is a licensed attorney in Louisiana with over fifteen years of law enforcement experience. Mr. Sanchez previously assisted in the training of New Orleans Police Department recruits and patrol officers with a focus on Fourth Amendment issues. Additionally, Mr. Sanchez worked as a senior trial attorney with the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted hundreds of cases. Mr. Sanchez will ensure that all legal concepts, principles, and real-life applications are taught consistently across courses and that recruits and officers receive up-to-date legal information based on current case law.
The Academy continues to work toward full compliance with the Consent Decree, incorporating key reform principles throughout the curriculum and delivering training that is more clear, consistent, and impactful.
Officer Assistance and Support The Officer Assistance Program (OAP) is providing mental health services to members
and their families, training officers on mental health stressors in law enforcement, and
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 15 of 18
developing a peer support program. NOPD submitted three OAP policies for review in 2016 and anticipates final approval in 2017.
During this reporting period, 14 new officers and/or family members accessed OAP services. By the end of 2016, 121 officers and/or family members accessed the program and received in-house services and/or referrals to outside professionals for care. 11 cases have remained in continuous counseling services on an in-house basis through the program. OAP will continue to provide these services and expand its reach across the Department to provide officers and their families with access to important well-being services.
Promotions and Performance Evaluations Chapter 34.2 - Promotions and Promotion Committee received approval from OCDM and
DOJ and went into effect November 13, 2016. This policy guides the promotions process. NOPD has implemented a performance evaluation form that must be completed in addition to the standard Civil Service evaluation in order to capture additional information required by the Consent Decree. NOPD posted an online training to instruct supervisors on filling out the forms. The performance evaluations allow for evaluation of officers’ community engagement responsibilities pursuant to Consent Decree ¶ 296.
Secondary Employment At the direction of OCDM, NOPD’s Audit and Review Unit initiated an audit of
compliance with the secondary employment paragraphs of the Consent Decree. The audit results will be published in 2017 and demonstrate that the Office of Police Secondary Employment
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 16 of 18
(OPSE) is making progress toward full compliance. Based on the preliminary findings of the audit, NOPD and OPSE are collaborating to address any noncompliant practices.
As of December 18, 2016, OPSE coordinates all permitted event details. NOPD’s Special Events Section will continue to review permits, but OPSE will assign officers to details, compensate officers, and interact with the customers for these events.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau continues to work toward full compliance with
misconduct and force requirements. PIB continues to utilize and refine approved policies to guide its operations. In accordance with ¶ 424, PIB conducts weekly meetings with the City Attorney’s office to ensure that discipline is distributed in a fair, legally defensible manner.
To promote effective and thorough misconduct investigations throughout the Department, PIB collaborated with the Training Academy to host trainings on intake of complaints. Additionally, PIB provided more specialized investigative training for those that conduct officer misconduct investigations. PIB also provided specialized trainings for new supervisors and commanders.
NOPD views mediation of citizen complaints as a powerful tool in NOPD’s community engagement effort. NOPD successfully mediated 41 citizen complaints in 2016 and aims to increase the use of mediations in 2017. As often as possible, NOPD would like to resolve complaints through giving voice to both citizens and officers. During mediations, NOPD and citizens discuss ways to improve police-community interactions in the future.
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 17 of 18
Transparency and Oversight NOPD has emerged as a leader in open policing data, releasing extensive data sets on
calls for service, police reports, stops and searches, uses of force, misconduct, body-worn camera metadata, and in-car camera metadata. NOPD continues to post on its website relevant Consent Decree reports and updated policy manuals. In addition, NOPD continues to meet with the United States Attorney Criminal Justice Coordination Group and Police Community Advisory Boards as required by ¶¶ 430 and 431. Lastly, NOPD officers assigned to a district participated in community meetings as required by ¶ 435.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz REBECCA H. DIETZ (LSB#28842) CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9920 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 rhdietz@nola.gov Attorneys for the City of New Orleans
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 511 Filed 04/19/17 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this 19th day of April, 2017 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz Rebecca H. Dietz
18

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12-CV-01924

:

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

SECTION E

:

JUDGE SUSIE MORGAN

:

DIVISION 2

MAGISTRATE WILKINSON

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT Pursuant to paragraph 469 of the Consent Decree entered in this matter, Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“City”), submits this status report to delineate the many steps taken by the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD,” the “Department”) to implement the Consent Decree; to outline the City’s assessment of its progress; plans to correct any issues; and responses to any concerns that have been raised by the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (“OCDM,” the “Monitor”).

Overview In its 2017 Annual Report, the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor reported that
“NOPD today is undeniably a better, stronger, more professional organization than it was” when the Consent Decree went into effect in 2013.1 OCDM added, “NOPD has proven itself to be a respected, forward-thinking, reform-minded police agency to which other agencies now routinely come for guidance.”2 The successful implementation of these reforms has led to a “significant

1 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 2 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5.
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 2 of 25
positive trend in community, officer, and detainee perception of the New Orleans Police Department” according to OCDM surveys.3 OCDM went on to state, “These positive trends illustrate the significant effort NOPD has dedicated to its reform efforts and to achieving the goals of the Consent Decree over the past three years.”4 NOPD aims to build upon this “impressive compliance progress”5 in 2018 as it strives toward full compliance with the Consent Decree. Below are selected highlights from 2017:
1. Improved Satisfaction with NOPD: The results from OCDM’s biennial survey of citizens, officers, and detainees were “very positive for the state and direction of the NOPD.”6 OCDM reported that “Respondents now have better perceptions of their most recent contact with the NOPD, are more satisfied with the NOPD, have more trust in the NOPD, and are more willing to cooperate with the NOPD.”7 79% of responding officers strongly agreed or agreed with the Superintendent’s leadership of NOPD in the 2016 survey, a dramatic increase from 19% supporting the Superintendent’s leadership in the 2014 survey.
3 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Reporting the Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey.” July 24, 2017. Page 9. 4 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Reporting the Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey.” July 24, 2017. Page 10. 5 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 40. 6 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 26. 7 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 26.
2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 3 of 25
2. Policy Development: OCDM noted in its annual report that “the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice have reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved almost two hundred NOPD policies.”8
3. Training: During a November court hearing on the Training Academy, lead monitor Jonathan Aronie noted that he had observed “a tremendous improvement in nearly all aspects of the Academy over the past year.”9 NOPD unveiled a new training academy and collaborated with OCDM and DOJ on a comprehensive review of lesson plans and training materials to ensure high quality, consistent instruction. The Academy continues to embrace innovative initiatives to improve training such as its groundbreaking partnership with the Innocence Project New Orleans to educate detectives on investigative best-practices and avoiding wrongful convictions.
4. Supervision: OCDM reported that NOPD’s supervision made “significant progress in 2017.”10 NOPD’s new data-driven management framework called MAX (Management Analytics for Excellence, which is available on NOPDnews.com) facilitates close and effective supervision by providing timely performance metrics spanning a supervisor’s responsibilities. The Compliance Bureau reports the results of frequent, widespread audits through MAX and holds supervisors accountable for improving performance. Through this iterative, self-monitoring process, the Department has dramatically improved its performance and attracted attention from other departments looking to adopt its model of data-driven management. To educate other departments on this model,
8 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 9. 9 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Opening Remarks of Lead Monitor Jonathan Aronie at 13th Public Court Hearing Regarding the NOPD Consent Decree.” November 16, 2017. 10 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12.
3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 4 of 25
NOPD co-authored a journal article with Judge Susie Morgan for Police Quarterly entitled “Police Reform Through Data-Driven Management” and presented on this topic to departments across the world at the International Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference. NOPD has provided in-depth guidance to departments from Baltimore, Chicago, the Virgin Islands, and other areas on how to effectively implement reforms. NOPD continues to improve its model of data-driven management to deliver additional performance gains. 5. Use of Force: “NOPD has made and continues to make significant progress in reducing excessive uses of force and in fully investigating potential improper uses of force,”11 per OCDM. NOPD has implemented internal auditing of all uses of force to ensure thorough implementation of the use of force requirements. 6. Crisis Intervention: NOPD has trained 35% of patrols officers in the specialized 40hour certification class, far exceeding the Consent Decree’s requirement to certify 20% of patrol officers in CIT. OCDM has noted that “officers and community members uniformly praise the CIT program.”12 7. Recruitment and Hiring: After OCDM identified deficiencies in the hiring process, as described in a critical January 2017 report, NOPD implemented a corrective action plan that produced “dramatic improvement in that area.”13
11 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree On NOPD Uses of Force.” May 5, 2017. Page 9. 12 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 22. 13 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 2.
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 5 of 25
8. Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Line-Ups: NOPD has “vastly improved its custodial interrogation, photographic lineup” practices, according to OCDM.14
9. Community Policing: OCDM reports that NOPD has “made significant progress”15
toward becoming a true community policing department and that the community policing
“mindset and culture shift are being reinforced appropriately through a variety of activities involving policy, training, practices, and transparency.”16
10. Peer Intervention: NOPD continues to implement EPIC (Ethical Policing is Courageous), its “first-in-the-nation department-wide peer intervention program,”17 to
help officers prevent mistakes and misconduct. EPIC has garnered national attention, and
NOPD presented on EPIC at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference
and hosted other departments for trainings on how to implement EPIC and benefit their
departments and communities.
11. Early Intervention System: OCDM noted that “NOPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree-required early intervention system (EWS) called Insight has been impressive.”18
OCDM highlighted the promise of a fully-implemented early intervention system, stating,
“When used properly by trained supervisors…Insight, without exaggeration, will save officer and civilian careers and lives.”19
14 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 2. 15 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 38. 16 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 35. 17 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 10. 18 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 35. 19 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Opening Remarks of Lead Monitor Jonathan Aronie At 12th Public Court Hearing Re NOPD Consent Decree Presented to Judge Susie Morgan United States Federal District Court, New Orleans, Louisiana.” September 1, 2017.
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 6 of 25
12. Misconduct Investigations: Prior to 2017, OCDM had already observed “significant improvement” in the Public Integrity Bureau’s operations, and PIB built upon this momentum in 2017.20 OCDM elaborated in its 2017 Annual Report, stating, “We found PIB to be in general compliance, although we noted deficiencies with respect to credibility assessments and timely-completion of investigations.”21
13. Transparency: In its 2017 Annual Report, OCDM declared that “NOPD is in compliance with the transparency and oversight provisions” of the Consent Decree as a result of the Department’s multitude of open policing data, critical incident video release policy, and other initiatives.22 NOPD’s transparency initiatives prompted The Sunlight Foundation to praise NOPD as “uncommon” and “ahead of the curve” in terms of transparency.23 Data analytics website FiveThirtyEight called NOPD “arguably the queen of open police data.”24
14. Sustaining the Reforms: NOPD collaborated with the City Council to create and implement city regulations that will help sustain reforms after the completion of the Consent Decree. The regulations, which were passed by the City Council, mandate the continuation of reforms involving “use of force, crisis intervention, sexual assault and domestic violence response, community policing, the training academy, body-worn
20 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the First & Second Quarters of 2016.” September 26, 2016. Page 76. 21 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12. 22 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12. 23 Becca James. “Opening Criminal Justice Data: What We Learned from Louisiana.” Sunlight Foundation, 26 Oct. 2016, sunlightfoundation.com/2015/04/01/opening-criminal-justice-data-what-we-learned-from-louisiana/. 24 Jeff Asher. “Which Cities Share The Most Crime Data?” FiveThirtyEight, 28 Dec. 2015, fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-cities-share-the-most-crime-data/.
6

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 7 of 25
cameras, transparency, compliance, and audits.”25 OCDM lauded this approach to “formalizing the City’s commitment to the Consent Decree’s core principles,” stating, “The adoption of this Regulation was a notable and praise-worthy achievement.”26 OCDM added, “While such regulations can be revised by future leaders, they cannot be revised by a future NOPD superintendent alone, and they cannot be revised without official, public action.”27 EPIC NOPD’s “first-in-the-nation department-wide peer intervention program,”28 EPIC (Ethical Policing Is Courageous), continues to garner national attention. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum, praised the program, stating “It's going to save lives, and it's going to save careers.”29 OCDM summarized EPIC in its 2017 Annual Report: “NOPD, working with experts, has created a ground-breaking officer support program called EPIC, which stands for Ethical Policing is Courageous. EPIC seeks to train and empower each of the Department’s more than 1100 officers, supervisors, and leadership personnel to effectively and safely intervene to prevent misconduct. EPIC is a form of officer assistance, not discipline, because its principles teach officers that intervention
25 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 26 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 27 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 28 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 10. 29 Jim Mustian. “Police Expert Lauds NOPD Reforms, Embrace of Consent Decree.” The Advocate, 11 Oct. 2016, www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/crime_police/article_8a383d08-8fe4-11e6-848a-0bb3906d4bca.html.
7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 8 of 25
and prevention can save officers’ lives and careers, as well as protect the public. At its simplest, it gives officers tools and strategies to protect their fellow officers.”30 NOPD has trained nearly the entire Department in the eight hour EPIC training and is working to infuse EPIC principles into a variety of training courses to continually reinforce EPIC as a core philosophy of NOPD’s operations. NOPD helped educate other departments about this important program through a variety of means in 2017. In May, NOPD hosted an EPIC training and roundtable in New Orleans that was attended by representatives from the Arlington Police Department (Texas), Memphis Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office, and independent monitors overseeing the Newark Police Department’s consent decree. The event included an introduction to EPIC and other NOPD innovations, an observation of an EPIC training course, and a roundtable discussion on the EPIC program. The event was capped by a public court hearing about EPIC. Lead monitor Jonathan Aronie shared a presentation on the progress that has been made, Commander Nicholas Gernon testified about the practical benefits of implementing EPIC, and community advocates Mary Howell and Ted Quant spoke about EPIC’s potential to positively impact police-community relations. At the hearing, Judge Morgan stated, “It’s a credit to the New Orleans Police Department that they want to do things to make their department better as well as other departments better.”31 Community advocate Ted Quant added, “One measure of success cannot be measured: All the
30 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 11. 31 Ramon Antonio Vargas. “Federal judge presiding over police reform pact praises NOPD for embracing ethical policing program.” The New Orleans Advocate. 18 May 2017. <http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_fbea508a-3c1e-11e7-a84f-abb936262bb2.html>
8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 9 of 25
headlines not written about an act of brutality or injustice because an EPIC officer intervenes to prevent it…For all the headlines not written, I have hope.”32
NOPD also presented on EPIC to police departments from across the world at the International Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference in Philadelphia. Since then, other police departments have reached out to NOPD for additional support in incorporating EPIC into their operations. NOPD planned an EPIC conference for 2018 to help other departments adopt this innovative peer intervention program. In addition, NOPD created a new, public EPIC website, epic.nola.gov, to provide easy access to EPIC training materials for law enforcement agencies across the country and to provide an opportunity for officers to share examples of successful interventions. A dedicated email address, EPIC@nola.gov, has been set up to provide a centralized point of contact for EPIC inquiries. Policies
NOPD continues to collaborate with DOJ and OCDM to institute best practice policies that incorporate all Consent Decree requirements. NOPD has submitted all policies for review, and all finalized policies are posted on nola.gov/nopd/policies. OCDM noted in its annual report that “the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice have reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved almost two hundred NOPD policies.”33 NOPD continues to review approved policies on an ongoing basis to make revisions as appropriate.
32 Lane, Emily. “In ‘EPIC’ effort, New Orleans police work to stop officer misconduct before it happens.” New Orleans Times-Picayune. 14 June 2017. <http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/06/nopd_new_orleans_epic_police_p.html> 33 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 9.
9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 10 of 25
Use of Force OCDM published a report on use of force in May 2017 and concluded, “NOPD has made
and continues to make significant progress in reducing excessive uses of force and in fully investigating potential improper uses of force.”34 Further, “NOPD continues to progress toward compliance with all Use of Force Consent Decree requirements,” per OCDM.35 To achieve and
sustain full compliance, NOPD initiated internal audits of all uses of force on a weekly basis to provide frequent, in-depth feedback to leadership on compliance with use of force requirements.36
With the assistance of these regular audits, NOPD is sustaining high levels of compliance for most
requirements. Through training, active management, and audits, NOPD believes it is addressing
deficiencies noted previously by OCDM. NOPD posts audit results regularly in MAX, which is
publicly available via NOPDnews.com.
As patrol officers and supervisors strive toward full compliance with the use of force
requirements, specialized units such as the Force Investigation Team and the Canine Unit have
dramatically improved since the inception of the Consent Decree. OCDM acknowledged in its
annual report that “NOPD has demonstrated compliance with the requirement to establish a Force Investigation Team.”37 In addition, “The NOPD canine unit was successfully transformed early in the Consent Decree process,” according to OCDM.38 OCDM added, “These changes have had
34 Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree On NOPD Uses of Force. Released May 5, 2017. Page 8. 35 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 14. 36 The Compliance Bureau reviews all Level 1-3 uses of force and Level 4 uses of force involving a controlled electrical weapon as defined by Chapter 1.3 – Use of Force. NOPD’s Force Investigation Team (FIT) conducts indepth investigations of all Level 4 uses of force, and NOPD’s Use of Force Review Board reviews FIT’s investigations to determine whether the force was authorized by policy and/or presents other individual or departmental issues. 37 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 15. 38 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 9.
10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 11 of 25
an impact. In 2017 there were no canine bites or off-leash deployments, reflecting the impact of a stricter policy, training on the policy, and close and effective supervision.”39
Members of the Albuquerque Police Department and other police departments have observed NOPD’s Use of Force Review Board as a model for building or enhancing their own review boards. NOPD’s Use of Force Review Board continues to meet monthly to review all serious uses of force and investigations by the Force Investigation Team (FIT). The Board can then order additional investigation, if necessary; determine whether the use of force violated policy; refer a case for disciplinary action; direct supervisors to take other corrective action; and determine whether a case raises additional tactical, equipment, training, or policy concerns. Crisis Intervention Team
NOPD’s crisis intervention training continues to help keep officers and citizens safe in difficult crisis situations. OCDM has noted that “officers and community members uniformly praise the CIT program.”40 NOPD has trained 35% of patrols officers in the specialized 40-hour certification class, far exceeding the Consent Decree’s requirement to certify 20% of patrol officers in CIT. The Department provides eight hours of CIT training to CIT officers on an annual basis in compliance with ¶ 114.
New police recruits continue to receive 16 hours of crisis intervention training in their introductory training, and the Department provides in-service training to all officers annually. The Department will continue to conduct crisis intervention trainings for call takers and dispatchers with the Orleans Parish Communications District in compliance with ¶ 119.
39 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 16. 40 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 22.
11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 12 of 25
Stops, Searches, and Arrests In March 2017, NOPD’s Audit and Review Unit began conducting monthly audits on
stops, searches, and arrests and procedural justice. The Audit and Review Unit distributes the results to the Department through MAX, which is available to the public via NOPDnews.com. NOPD leadership uses these audits to identify noncompliant practices and improve performance. Bias-Free Policing
OCDM reported that “NOPD has adopted policies and conducted trainings to implement the Consent Decree’s bias-free policing requirements.”41 OCDM noted multiple positive biasfree policing developments in 2017 Annual Report, including an “improvement in the public’s overall perception of the NOPD”; “fewer complaints of biased police conduct”; “progress toward satisfying the Consent Decree’s language assistance requirements”; and “working closely with Breakout and other LGBTQ advocates” to create an “LGBTQ policy that should prove to be a model for other departments.”42 To monitor the implementation of bias-free policing principles, NOPD has incorporated elements of related policies into its ongoing audits of stops, searches, and arrests and procedural justice. Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups
NOPD has “vastly improved its custodial interrogation, photographic lineup” practices, according to OCDM reviews.43 NOPD continues to demonstrate high levels of compliance with custodial interrogation and photographic line-up requirements in reviews conducted by both the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor and the NOPD’s Audit and Review Unit. NOPD will
41 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 10. 42 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 21. 43 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 2.
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 13 of 25
continue to review adherence to these requirements on a regular basis to ensure sustained compliance. Policing Free of Gender Bias
While OCDM has found “vast improvements in the patrol response”44 to domestic violence, the Monitoring Team also identified deficient responses in a targeted audit. OCDM found that NOPD had failed to properly document some domestic incidents and provided a delayed response to some incidents. NOPD immediately drafted a corrective action plan and began implementing reforms to address these deficiencies. This corrective action plan included: the initiation of disciplinary investigations as appropriate; revising policies to provide additional clarity on the deficient areas identified in the audit; a comprehensive review of all domestic violence related policies to improve the response to domestic violence incidents; roll-call training on rectifying the deficiencies identified in the audit; continual internal auditing; prioritizing the dispatch of domestic violence calls; and trend analysis of NOPD‘s response to domestic violence. NOPD is confident that this corrective action plan has brought improvements to the Department’s response to domestic violence. The reporting of domestic violence had already improved significantly in advance of OCDM’s report, and data indicate that reporting has improved further as a result of the corrective action plan in response to OCDM’s audit and report.
The Special Victims Section, which includes detectives investigating domestic violence and sexual assault, “continues to perform well,”45 according to OCDM audits, after the
44 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 33. 45 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 10.
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 14 of 25
“remarkable turnaround"46 in the Section’s investigation after a critical audit from the Office of Inspector General. Community Policing and Engagement
OCDM states that NOPD has “made significant progress”47 toward becoming a true community policing department and that the community policing “mindset and culture shift are being reinforced appropriately through a variety of activities involving policy, training, practices, and transparency.”48
NOPD has implemented a wide array of initiatives to incorporate community policing throughout its operations. The Department created a community policing program based on input received through community meetings and surveys. Each district’s community-policing plan is presented to the public at monthly New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council (NONPACC) meetings. The community policing programs in each district exhibit a collaborative problem-solving approach with residents, a requirement of ¶ 227. NOPD also tracks implementation of each district’s initiatives to address community concerns in MAX, a requirement of ¶¶ 228 and 229. The Department will continue to reach out to a broad cross-section of community stakeholders to reassess community priorities and continually update each district’s community policing program to reflect current community priorities.
The Department has also ramped up its youth engagement efforts. NOPD continues to conduct youth dialogues at various schools throughout the city where students and police meet to discuss methods to build relationships, a requirement of ¶ 227. In addition to the implementation
46 Jonathan Bullington. “NOPD Sex Crimes Unit Shows 'Remarkable Turnaround,' Inspector General Says.” NOLA.com, NOLA.com, 22 June 2016, www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/nopd_sex_crimes_unit_shows_rem.html. 47 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 38. 48 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016.” June 19, 2017. Page 35.
14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 15 of 25
of many district-specific youth-police dialogues, the Department also formed a Youth Advisory Council. The Youth Advisory Council is a group of high school students who represent the city’s young people in dialogue with NOPD about priorities, ideas, and important information. Another youth initiative is the Department’s new Cadet Program. The Cadet Program is comprised of young individuals who are interested in pursuing a career in Law Enforcement and are between 17 and 20 years of age.
NOPD continues to hold community events such as “coffee with cops” in each district, where the community can enjoy a cup of coffee with an officer. NOPD continues to host or participate in a multitude of other community events, such as Night Out Against Crime events throughout the city, holiday gift giveaways at police districts, and many other community events. NOPD also hosted Consent Decree update meetings across the city where Department leaders discussed reforms with residents. Community members can learn about these and other community policing and engagement efforts via NOPDNews.com or NOPD’s social media accounts.
NOPD is integrating community policing principles, such as procedural justice, into its police tactics, a requirement of ¶ 225. NOPD audits body-worn camera videos on a monthly basis to provide supervisors and officers feedback on their interactions with the community through the lens of procedural justice. NOPD will continue to focus on implementing community and problem-oriented policing principles to foster the Department’s development into a model community policing department.
NOPD believes its reforms and substantive community policing and engagement efforts have helped build mutual respect and trusting relationships with the community, as indicated by improved citizen perception of NOPD evidenced in OCDM’s biennial survey. Per OCDM, “the
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 16 of 25
feedback [from the survey] was very positive for the state and direction of the NOPD.”49 In its 2017 Annual Report, OCDM summarized some of the positive findings from the biennial survey:50
(a) “Respondents now have better perceptions of their most recent contact with the NOPD, are more satisfied with the NOPD, have more trust in the NOPD, and are more willing to cooperate with the NOPD.”
(b) “Respondents who interacted with NOPD felt they were more likely to be treated with dignity, respect, and politeness.”
(c) “Respondents noted improvements in officer honesty, fairness, professionalism, and integrity.”
(d) “Respondents felt that improvements in policing had been made in New Orleans, that the NOPD had become a better police department, and that the NOPD was less likely to use excessive force than two years ago.”
(e) “Respondents were more likely to believe corruption in the NOPD is low and that past NOPD scandals did not reflect current practices.”
Aside from these very positive findings, NOPD is working to address lingering community concerns identified in OCDM’s survey through sustained and expanded community policing and engagement initiatives and internal auditing. Recruitment
OCDM reviewed NOPD’s hiring practices, with assistance from NOPD’s Compliance Bureau, and identified deficiencies in the hiring process, including insufficient documentation of
49 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 26. 50 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 26.
16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 17 of 25
the justification to hire candidates with possible disqualifiers. Immediately upon notification of these deficiencies, NOPD drafted a corrective action plan to improve the process and then worked continuously to reform the process. OCDM documented both the areas for improvement as well as NOPD’s corrective action plan in a January 2017 report. Since then, NOPD has hired a dedicated recruitment director instituted another level of review for all applicants, provided additional training to background investigators, revised hiring criteria, and initiated other efforts to improve the hiring process as a whole. OCDM deemed the corrective action plan “smart” and “targeted”51 and later reported “dramatic improvement”52 in the recruit evaluation process. Academy and In-Service Training
During a November court hearing on the Training Academy, lead monitor Jonathan Aronie noted that he had observed “tremendous improvement in nearly all aspects of the Academy over the past year.”53 Mr. Aronie attested that progress had been made in each of the major categories that comprise the Academy’s learning environment: the curriculum, the personnel, the instruction, the facility, the processes, and the students. OCDM’s 2017 Annual Report praised the NOPD’s progress reforming the Academy as a “notable success in 2017.”54
The Academy’s curriculum was the subject of intense focus from the Monitoring Team in 2017. Monitors reviewed lesson plans for recruit and in-service training and by the end of the year had approved more than 95% of lesson plans. The Monitoring Team also evaluated the personnel and their manner of instruction via regular classroom observations. Academy
51 Emily Lane. “After Scathing Report on NOPD's Hiring Practices, Author Says Fixes 'Smart, Targeted'.” NOLA.com, NOLA.com, 8 Mar. 2017, www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/02/nopd_hiring_vetting_recruitmen.html. 52 Office of the Consent Decree. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016 Released June 19, 2017.” Page 2. 53 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Opening Remarks of Lead Monitor Jonathan Aronie at 13th Public Court Hearing Regarding the NOPD Consent Decree.” November 16, 2017. 54 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 30.
17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 18 of 25
leadership conducted its own observations in addition to yearly instructor evaluations, which were reviewed by the Monitoring Team. The lesson plan reviews checked for inclusion of key reform principles across the recruit and in-service curriculum, including elements of community policing, bias-free policing, and peer intervention. The Academy assigned a dedicated instructor to deliver a course devoted to the Department’s peer intervention program, EPIC (Ethical Policing Is Courageous). In addition to delivering the course to all recruits, the instructor provided the training to officers across the Department, working toward the goal of training 100% of officers by Spring 2018.
The Academy’s facility was vastly upgraded in its move to a newly renovated building with enhanced learning spaces, including a state-of-the-art computer lab and enlarged and improved spaces for tactical exercises. The facility provides more opportunities for instructors to utilize “smart” technology, incorporating interactive elements into their teaching. Academy staff have also worked to streamline processes and improve documentation of training and attendance.
Academy staff created an annual master training plan based on current training needs and provided recruit training, regular sessions of core in-service, supervisor in-service, and command staff in-service, along with specialized training for detectives, FTOs, CIT-certified officers, and others in specialized roles. The Academy continues to embrace innovative initiatives to improve training such as its groundbreaking partnership with the Innocence Project New Orleans to educate detectives on investigative best-practices and avoiding wrongful convictions.
In 2018, the Academy will continue striving to achieve full compliance with the Consent Decree. The Academy remains focused on ensuring all personnel receive top quality instruction in a collaborative and engaging learning environment and that the curriculum is tailored to meet officers’ specific needs. Academy staff have been collaborating closely with the NOPD
18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 19 of 25
Compliance Bureau and the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor to build upon 2017’s success and continue improving NOPD’s training. Officer Assistance and Support
The Officer Assistance Program (OAP) continues to provide mental health services to NOPD members and their families and train officers on mental health stressors in law enforcement in compliance with Consent Decree requirements. OAP also facilitates NOPD’s Crisis Intervention Training to provide expert training from a mental health and substance abuse perspective. OAP created Geaux Blue Day, an appreciation event for officers and their families, in 2016 and coordinated the second annual event in 2017 to significant fanfare. OAP will continue to find innovative ways to support officers and their families to provide these services and expand its reach across the Department to provide officers and their families with access to important wellbeing services. Promotions and Performance Evaluations
NOPD has implemented a new quarterly performance evaluation system to assess officer performance on a quarterly basis in compliance with ¶ 299. This process will incorporate feedback from Insight, NOPD’s early intervention system, in compliance with the early intervention requirements of the Consent Decree pertaining to performance evaluations. The Department has also implemented a new performance evaluation supervisory training course focused on how to effectively evaluate officer performance in compliance with ¶ 300. In 2018, NOPD will launch new tools to help supervisors continually document officer performance in support of close and effective supervision and thorough evaluations.
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 20 of 25
Supervision NOPD’s supervision, which is critical to the implementation of the overall reforms of the
Consent Decree, made “significant progress in 2017,” per OCDM.55 NOPD has created and implemented a new data-driven management framework called MAX (Management Analytics for Excellence) to facilitate close and effective supervision. MAX incorporates performance metrics spanning the spectrum of a supervisor’s responsibilities, including crime, clearance rates, response times, Consent Decree compliance, and many other topics. Supervisors use MAX to ensure their unit is performing as expected, and leadership holds supervisors accountable for improving their performance as evidenced in MAX. Department leaders and supervisors participate in weekly MAX meetings to discuss trends, recognize improvements, and troubleshoot deficiencies. The MAX dashboard is available to the public through NOPDnews.com.
MAX has proven particularly effective in facilitating compliance with Consent Decree requirements. The Compliance Bureau conducts frequent compliance audits on a wide variety of topics and reports the results through MAX to communicate both proficient and deficient practices to supervisors. Supervisors are then held accountable to improve their results for the next period’s compliance audits. Through this iterative, self-monitoring process, the Department has improved its compliance levels across the board and attracted attention from other departments looking to adopt its model of data-driven management. To educate other departments on this model, NOPD co-authored a journal article with Judge Susie Morgan for Police Quarterly entitled “Police Reform Through Data-Driven Management” and presented on this topic to departments across the world at the International Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference.
55 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12.
20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 21 of 25
NOPD is also using a new early intervention system, entitled Insight, to track officer level trends to facilitate close and effective supervision. Beyond simply providing supervisors with an overview of officer trends, Insight prompts supervisors to intervene when officer activity exceeds certain predetermined thresholds, possibly signaling a problematic trend. For example, if an officer has a high rate of force per arrest, the supervisor selects an intervention appropriate to the officer’s needs with the goal of improving future performance. In 2017, the Department improved Insight training by incorporating OCDM feedback and conducted frequent audits to determine supervisors’ familiarity with the system. OCDM has highlighted the impact of a fullyimplemented early intervention system, stating, “When used properly by trained supervisors…Insight, without exaggeration, will save officer and civilian careers and lives.”56 Importantly, OCDM stated that “NOPD’s implementation of the Consent Decree-required early intervention system (EWS) called Insight has been impressive.”57 NOPD will continue to focus on thoroughly implementing Insight to realize its full potential for improving the performance of officers across the Department. Secondary Employment
At the direction of OCDM, NOPD’s Audit and Review Unit initiated an audit of compliance with the secondary employment paragraphs of the Consent Decree. The audit results were published in June 2017 and demonstrated that the Office of Police Secondary Employment (OPSE) and NOPD were making progress toward full compliance. NOPD and OPSE collaborated to address the practices for which the audit did not find full compliance.
56 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Opening Remarks of Lead Monitor Jonathan Aronie At 12th Public Court Hearing Re NOPD Consent Decree Presented to Judge Susie Morgan United States Federal District Court, New Orleans, Louisiana.” September 1, 2017. 57 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 35.
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 22 of 25
OCDM provided a status report in its 2017 Annual Report, stating, “The Office of Secondary Employment (OPSE) continues to work well and is in compliance with virtually all applicable Consent Decree provisions.”58 OCDM elaborated, “Some remaining paragraphs for which the City is still non-compliant are ones that have been rendered unnecessary or unfeasible because they were based on assumptions that no longer match OPSE’s current, approved operations. The parties, with the Monitor’s approval, have filed a motion with the court to eliminate or modify these provisions. Thus, as a practical matter OPSE is compliant.”59 Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
Prior to 2017, OCDM had already observed “significant improvement” in the Public Integrity Bureau’s operations, and PIB built upon this momentum in 2017.60 OCDM provided an updated progress report in its 2017 Annual Report, stating, “We found PIB to be in general compliance, although we noted deficiencies with respect to credibility assessments and timelycompletion of investigations.”61 To address these deficiencies, PIB created a Quality Assurance and Quality Control Unit to monitor investigations and improve the quality of investigations further.
Citizen-initiated complaints decreased in 2017. This comes after a concerted effort to make the complaint process more transparent and available to citizens by producing complaint brochures, placards, and forms, which are available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese in civic locations across the city. These resources have been made available at all NOPD District
58 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12. 59 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 37. 60 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the First & Second Quarters of 2016.” September 26, 2016. Page 76. 61 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12.
22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 23 of 25
Stations, Headquarters, PIB, New Orleans City Hall, the Office of the Independent Police Monitor, and online. Comprehensive disciplinary data will be provided in a forthcoming 2017 annual report.
Finally, PIB and the Compliance Bureau collaborated with OCDM and DOJ to create a more efficient disciplinary process focused on improving future officer performance. In short, PIB can now efficiently close complaints with conclusive body-worn camera footage; the disciplinary matrix now progresses more effectively based on the severity and frequency of the offense; and PIB and supervisors now have more discretion to handle minor violations through non-disciplinary means, such as training or counseling, which are more focused on improving officer performance than regular discipline. The revised disciplinary procedures should alleviate officer fears that simple, minor mistakes will amount to serious discipline. These and related adjustments have improved the disciplinary system, and NOPD will continue to collaborate with OCDM and DOJ to implement identified enhancements to the disciplinary process. Transparency and Oversight
In its 2017 Annual Report, OCDM declared that “NOPD is in compliance with the transparency and oversight provisions” of the Consent Decree.62 NOPD has emerged as a leader in open policing data, releasing extensive data sets on calls for service, police reports, stops and searches, uses of force, misconduct, body-worn camera metadata, and in-car camera metadata. NOPD was one of the first departments to create a policy for releasing video footage of critical incidents, and the Department continues to release footage in a transparent manner to foster trust with the community. NOPD continues to post on its website relevant Consent Decree reports and updated policies for public viewing. These transparent initiatives prompted The Sunlight
62 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 12.
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 24 of 25
Foundation to praise NOPD as “uncommon” and “ahead of the curve” in terms of transparency.63
Data analytics website FiveThirtyEight called NOPD “arguably the queen of open police data.”64
NOPD will continue these leading transparency and accountability initiatives to build trust with
the community.
Sustaining the Reforms
NOPD worked with the City, OCDM, and DOJ to create City regulations to help
institutionalize these reforms beyond the completion of the Consent Decree. City Council formally
introduced these regulations, and they went into effect on December 29, 2017. The regulations
mandate the continuation of reforms involving “use of force, crisis intervention, sexual assault and
domestic violence response, community policing, the training academy, body-worn cameras,
transparency, compliance, and audits.”65 OCDM lauded this approach to “formalizing the City’s
commitment to the Consent Decree’s core principles,” stating, “The adoption of this Regulation
was a notable and praise-worthy achievement.”66 OCDM added, “While such regulations can be
revised by future leaders, they cannot be revised by a future NOPD superintendent alone, and they
cannot be revised without official, public action.”67 The regulations are available on NOPD’s
website at Nola.gov/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Rebecca H. Dietz REBECCA H. DIETZ (LSB #28842) CITY ATTORNEY CHERRELL R. SIMMS, (LSB#28227)
63 Becca James. “Opening Criminal Justice Data: What We Learned from Louisiana.” Sunlight Foundation, 26 Oct. 2016, sunlightfoundation.com/2015/04/01/opening-criminal-justice-data-what-we-learned-from-louisiana/. 64 Jeff Asher. “Which Cities Share The Most Crime Data?” FiveThirtyEight, 28 Dec. 2015, fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-cities-share-the-most-crime-data/. 65 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 66 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5. 67 Office of the Consent Decree Monitor. “2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree.” April 10, 2018. Page 5.
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 552 Filed 05/03/18 Page 25 of 25
SR. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CHURITA H. HANSELL, (LSB#25694) DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street, Ste. 5E03 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: 504-658-9800 Facsimile: 504-658-9868 rhdietz@nola.gov Attorneys for the City of New Orleans CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 3rd of May, 2018 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that a copy of the foregoing will be sent to all non-CM/ECF participants by United States Mail, properly addressed and postage pre-paid.
/s/ Rebecca H. Dietz Rebecca H. Dietz
25

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 71
Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree On NOPD Uses of Force May 5, 2017
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 71 Page 2 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 71 Page 3 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 71 Page 4 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ..............................................................................................................................2 II. Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................3 III. Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................4 IV. Glossary of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................6 V. Introduction to Special Report.....................................................................................................................8 VI. Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................9 VII. Methodology...................................................................................................................................................11 VIII. Discussion of Specific Uses of Force....................................................................................................12 IX. 2016 Use of Force Analysis .........................................................................................................................14
A. Compliance with Reporting Requirements.....................................................................................14 B. Sufficiency of Force Statements............................................................................................................15 C. Each Involved and Witness Officer Submitted Required Reports........................................ 15 D. Capturing Use of Force on BWC............................................................................................................16 E. Conduct of Investigation: Photographing Subjects of Force...................................................16 F. Injuries to Arrestee or Officer................................................................................................................18 G. Conduct of the Investigation: Supervisor’s Response to Scene ............................................. 19 H. Conduct of Investigation: Sufficiency of Supervisor’s Use of Force Report.....................19 I. Conduct of the Investigation: Reasonable Suspicion..................................................................20 J. Resistance Level by How the Encounter was Initiated.............................................................. 21 K. Instrumentality of Resistance by Instrumentality of Force .................................................... 22 L. Conduct of the Investigation: Interview the Subject of Force ................................................ 23 M. Conduct of the Investigation: Investigative Findings.................................................................23 X. Analysis of Uses of Force Over Time ......................................................................................................25 A. Total Use of Force Incidents ................................................................................................................... 25 B. Pointing a Firearm.......................................................................................................................................27 C. Use of Force by Activity Type................................................................................................................. 30 D. Pointing a Firearm by Activity Type...................................................................................................33 E. Use of Force by Level of Force...............................................................................................................34
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 71 Page 5 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
F. Non-Use of Force Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 37 G. Potential Relationships ............................................................................................................................. 38 XI. Assessment of NOPD Use of Force Data Integrity............................................................................40 A. Resisting Arrest Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 40 B. Injury to Arrested Individuals ............................................................................................................... 40 C. New Orleans Police Department Lawsuits ...................................................................................... 41 D. Citizen Allegations or Rank-initiated Excessive Use of Force Complaints.......................41 XII. Comprehensive Historic Use of Force Analysis (3rd Quarter 2015) ..................................42 XIII. Assessment of NOPD’s Use of Force Review Board Process ...................................................45 XIV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................47 XV. Appendixes......................................................................................................................................................48 A. Appendix A: Use of Force Data ............................................................................................................. 49 B. Appendix B: Use of Force Graphs........................................................................................................54 C. Appendix H: 2016 Comprehensive Use Of Force Analysis (2015 Data) .......................... 58
1. Compliance with Reporting Requirements............................................................................59 2. Sufficiency of Force Statements...................................................................................................60 3. Each Involved and Witness Officer Submitted Required Reports...............................61 4. Capturing Uses of Force on BWC.................................................................................................61 5. Conduct of Investigation: Photographing Subjects of Force..........................................62 6. Conduct of Investigation: Injuries to Officer or Arrestee ................................................63 7. Conduct of the Investigation: Supervisor’s Response to Scene ....................................65 8. Conduct of The Investigation; Sufficiency of Supervisor’s Use of Force Report...65 9. Conduct of The Investigation: Reasonable Suspicion........................................................66 10. Resistance Level by How the Encounter Was Initiated....................................................68 11. Instrumentality of Resistance by Instrumentality of Force............................................68 12. Conduct of The Investigation: Interviewing the Subject of Force ...............................69 13. Conduct of the Investigation: Investigative Findings........................................................70
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 71
Page 6 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 71
Page 7 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 71
Page 8 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL REPORT
As the Monitoring Team reported at the February 2017 public court hearing, NOPD continues to make significant progress in most every area of the Consent Decree. While the Department experienced a recent set-back in one area (recruit vetting), which was the subject of a Special Report issued by the Monitoring Team on January 18, 2017, most other areas continue to move forward with notable results. Among the areas where NOPD has made significant progress is in the way it uses, reports, and tracks force against civilians.
This Special Report focuses on NOPD uses of force – an area of particular attention in the U.S. Department of Justice NOPD Investigation Report that led to the formation of the Consent Decree.1 In its 2010/2011 investigation into the NOPD, the DOJ “found that officers in NOPD routinely use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution and NOPD policy.”2
The Monitoring Team has been reviewing NOPD uses of force, use of force policies and training, use of force recording keeping, use of force investigations, and use of force-related discipline since the outset of the Consent Decree. NOPD has made and continues to make significant progress in reducing excessive uses of force and in fully investigating potential improper uses of force. This Special Report summarizes our findings to date.

1

DOJ’s “Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department” (March 16, 2011) at

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd report.pdf (DOJ Investigation

Report).

2

DOJ Investigation Report at vi.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 71
Page 9 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the outset of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team consistently has reviewed all serious uses of force by NOPD officers. Additionally, the Monitoring Team regularly conducts broader Use of Force audits to ensure uses of force are being accurately reported, meaningfully reviewed by supervisors, and, where necessary, fully evaluated by NOPD PIB. This Report includes the following Use of Force analyses:
• A comparative analysis of uses of force from 2012 through November 2016. The Monitoring Team analyzed a sizable amount of data covering this five year period. The trends that emerge from those data are important in evaluating NOPD’s progress under the Consent Decree. The results of this analysis are set forth in Section X below.
• Multiple analyses aimed at assessing the integrity of NOPD’s use of force data. These analyses, set forth at Section XI below, are important to determine whether NOPD’s use of force data are reliable. Obviously, a data analysis is only as good as the integrity of the underlying data. Our analyses in this area give us strong comfort that NOPD’s current and recent use of force data are reliable.
• A discussion of specific 2016 uses of force. The Monitoring Team reviews all serious uses of force by the NOPD. Section VIII below describes several illustrative uses of force analyzed by the Monitoring Team.
• A comprehensive historic analysis of 2015 uses of force. This analysis covers all material elements of uses of force, including NOPD’s investigation into those uses of force. The results of this analysis are set forth in Section XII and XV.C below.
As will become evident, NOPD has made and continues to make significant progress in reducing excessive uses of force and in fully investigating potential improper uses of force. While the details are set out below, the following highlights significant aspects of our various findings based upon the totality of our audits, reviews, and observations:
• We found no incidents wherein force used to overcome resistance was not reported.
• We found no uses of force resulting in injuries unreported. Notably, this is an overall improvement from our prior audit, which identified several incidents of injuries and un-reported uses of force.
• We found no unreported uses of force when reviewing alleged excessive use of force lawsuits.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 10 of 71
Page 10 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• We found no unreported uses of force when cross-comparing against citizen or rank-initiated allegations of excessive use of force.
These audit findings give the Monitoring Team greater confidence in the integrity of NOPD’s use of force data and gives greater weight to the Team’s generally positive use of force findings discussed below. In short, the Monitoring Team found that NOPD does not appear to be underreporting its uses of force.
Notwithstanding these positive findings, the Monitoring Team identified areas for improvement by NOPD. For example,
• We found several cases where officers used boiler plate language to describe the actions of the subject of force, such as “the subject was combative,” “subject struggled,” and “the subject actively resisted.” We previously recommended to NOPD that investigating supervisors should require officers to avoid boilerplate language and report the behavior of the subject they used force against in specific behavioral. Commanders, who are required to review and sign-off on the investigation should ensure supervisors carry out their investigative responsibilities, returning deficient reports for corrective action.
• In our audit of 2015 data, we found supervisors failed to respond to the scene of nearly 44% of the Level II use-of-force incidents. Supervisors responded to all Level IV uses of force and there were no Level III uses of force for this audit period. NOPD policy, the Consent Decree, and sound police practices require an on-scene investigation by the supervisor to investigate all Level II, III, and IV use of force events. (Notably, NOPD has made significant improvement in this area, as reflected in our more recent audit of 2016 data, discussed below.)
• As part of our BWC audit, we identified several instances where the involved officer used poor tactics that contributed to the need to use force, led to the need to use a higher level of force, or needlessly put officers and/or civilians at greater risk. For example, we found several cases where the BWC video revealed improper handcuffing of suspects; an officer responding to a domestic violence incident placing himself in a tactical disadvantage by allowing the offender to reenter the residence unaccompanied; an officer placing a suspect in the rear of a squad car and transporting him without searching him for a weapon. These cases were brought to the Department’s attention for remedial attention directed at improving civilian and officer safety.
While these findings are important and must be remedied by NOPD, they should not overshadow the very positive Use of Force findings overall, which are detailed below.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 11 of 71 Page 11 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. METHODOLOGY To conduct our use of force audits, we reviewed supervisors’ use of force reports and officer Force Statements for the relevant time period. But such an audit, obviously, is only as good as the underlying data. In other words, if one relies only on self-reported uses of force, one runs the risk missing unreported uses of force. To guard against this risk, the Monitoring Team conducted several audits to evaluate whether officers consistently are reporting uses of force. These audits included a review of
• Resisting Arrest cases. • NOPD’s Injury to Arrestee reports. • All allegations of citizen-initiated complaints of excessive force. • All allegations of rank-initiated complaints of excessive use of force. Each of these audits is targeted at a data set where a use of force by a police officer was likely (or at least more likely than in other situations). By undertaking these targeted audits, the Monitoring Team can evaluate with a good degree of confidence whether officers are reporting their uses of force. If they are, then we can have greater confidence in the integrity of the underlying data. In addition to these targeted “control audits” and our broader audits of NOPD’s reported uses of force, the Monitoring Team also observed the implementation and operation of the Department’s Use of Force Review Board (“UFRB”) and reviewed random Body-Worn Camera (“BWC”) recordings.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 12 of 71
Page 12 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VIII. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC USES OF FORCE
The Monitoring Team reviews all serious NOPD uses of force to ensure the Department complies with all Consent Decree obligations relating thereto, including fully investigating each serious use of force in an objective, fair, and unbiased manner. During this reporting period, the Monitoring Team reviewed the following uses of force, among others.
• We reviewed an internal use of force investigation involving an allegation of excessive force by a patrol officer. The Monitoring Team reviewed the underlying facts and the PIB/FIT investigation, and concluded NOPD correctly arrived at a disposition of “not sustained.” FIT handled the complaint investigation extremely well. The Monitoring Team also reviewed PIB’s administrative investigation, and identified a number of items that could have been handled more effectively by the investigator. While these items did not impact the overall outcome of the investigation, we promptly brought them to NOPD’s attention so they could be remedied going forward.
• We reviewed a use of force involving a suspect allegedly fighting with officers, and the subsequent use of a Taser by an officer. The Monitoring Team reviewed the entirety of the FIT investigation and made several recommendations to FIT focusing on the investigation and on the underlying police conduct. FIT did a very good job investigating in a fair, professional, and unbiased manner, and in incorporating several officer-safety recommendations in their report to the Use of Force Review Board.
• The Monitoring Team has been closely reviewing the NOPD’s handling of an officer-involved shooting of a teen driving a car allegedly seen at the scene of a murder. The Monitoring Team thoroughly reviewed PIB’s handling of the investigation. Over the course of our review, we identified a few minor items that could have been handled differently by NOPD’s FIT. In light of the ongoing investigation, we raised these issues with FIT and Judge Morgan, and all have been or are being corrected. At this time, none have impacted the integrity of the investigation.
• We closely monitored FIT’s investigation into a shooting by Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s deputies in Orleans Parish in 2016. While NOPD officers were not involved in the shooting, NOPD, over the initial objection of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff, nonetheless appropriately asserted control over the investigation. Over the course of our review, we identified a few items that could have been handled more effectively by NOPD’s FIT. In light of the ongoing investigation, we raised these issues with FIT and Judge Morgan, and all were corrected. None impacted the integrity of the investigation.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 13 of 71 Page 13 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• The Monitoring Team has been closely reviewing the NOPD’s handling of an officer-involved shooting at the Carriage House Apartments. The Monitoring Team was at the scene immediately following the shooting, attended the autopsy, and reviewed PIB’s handling of the investigation. Over the course of our review, we identified a few items that could have been handled more effectively by NOPD’s FIT. In light of the ongoing investigation, we raised these issues with FIT and Judge Morgan, and all have been or are being corrected. At this time, none have impacted the integrity of the investigation.
These example are illustrations only. As noted above, the Monitoring Team reviews and analyses all serious uses of force and shares its analysis with NOPD, the DOJ, and the Court.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 14 of 71
Page 14 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IX. 2016 USE OF FORCE ANALYSIS

As noted above, the Monitoring Team’s latest comprehensive Use of Force analysis took place over the course of 2016. The data analyzed, however, were 3rd quarter of 2015 data. To determine whether the positive results of our review still hold true today, the Monitoring Team conducted a supplemental audit during the first quarter of 2017.

The Monitoring Team sampled 30 use of force incidents (of 110 total incidents) reported by NOPD officers in the months of September and October 2016 (a sample review rate of 27.2%). The results are consistent with the more thorough, 2015 audit, described below (as well as in Appendix XV.C).

A. Compliance with Reporting Requirements

Throughout this Report, we refer to an officer who uses force as the “involved” officer. An officer who witnessed the use of force, but did not use force, is referred to as a “witness” officer. The Consent Decree and Department policy requires all involved officers (for Levels 1 through 4 uses of force), and some witness officers (Levels 2 through 4 uses of force only), to submit a use of force statement prior to ending their duty shift. In the 30 incidents we reviewed, there were 58 officers who used force (i.e., involved officers) and 8 witness officers.3

Table 1. Cross Tabulations of Force Statement Found and Involved and Witness Officers

Force Statement Found

Yes

No

Total

N

%

N

%

N

Officer Involved

57

98.3%

1

1.7%

58

Officer Witness

6

75.0%

2

25.0%

8

Total

63

95.5%

3

4.5%

66

As reflected above, force statements were found for 98.3% of involved officers (57 of 58) and for 75% of witness officers (6 of 8). The 2016 data show a higher percentage of both involved and witness officers submitted the required force statements than in the 2015 sample (involved

3

The small number of witness officers makes it difficult to draw more than generalized conclusions here.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 15 of 71
Page 15 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

officers increased from 93.2% to 98.3% and witness officers increased from 71% to 75%). Although the Department is trending upward, some work still must be done to reach the goal of 100% submission of required force statements. During this review, the Monitoring Team noted all involved and witness officers who failed to fulfill their reporting obligations and shared this information with the Compliance Bureau.
B. Sufficiency of Force Statements
Similar to our findings in the 2015 audit, although the Monitoring Team noted an increase in submission of use of force statements, several statements submitted by officers lacked a clear articulation of vital information, including, for example, the reason for the encounter, the type of resistance offered by the subject, and the type of force used by the officer. Two illustrative examples appear below.
• In two separate incident reports, the officer stated they needed to go “hands on” with a subject due to the subject’s actions. In neither case does the officer explain the meaning of “going hands on” or describe the type of force used.
• In another force statement, the Monitoring Team noted the name on the force statement was that of the victim as opposed to the officer who used force. The force statement was signed by the officer’s supervisor. The supervisor’s lack of attention to detail concerned the Monitoring Team.
C. Each Involved and Witness Officer Submitted Required Reports
As stated above, the Consent Decree and Department policy requires all involved officers (Levels 1 through 4 uses of force) and some witness officers (Levels 2 through 4 uses of force) to submit a use of force statement prior to ending their duty shift. The following table shows the number of incidents in which all involved and witness officers complied with the reporting requirements for that specific incident. For example, if there were 2 involved officers and 2 witness officers for a specific incident, all 4 officers would have to submit the required statement to achieve a “yes” tally in the table below for that specific incident.

Table H-2. Frequency of incidents where all involved and witness officers submitted force statements.

Force statement submitted by all officers
Yes No Total

N

%

28

93.3%

2

6.7%

30

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 16 of 71
Page 16 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

As reflected above, in 93.3% of the incidents reviewed (28 of 30), all involved and witness officers submitted the required force statement through the proper channels. The 2016 sample shows an increase in the overall compliance of both involved and witness officers submitting the required force statements (88.6% in 2015 compared to 93.3% in 2016). During this review, the Monitoring Team noted all involved and witness officers who failed to fulfill their reporting obligations and shared this information with the Compliance Bureau.

D. Capturing Use of Force on BWC

The Monitoring Team reviewed BWC video to analyze whether NOPD officers were meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree and Department policy to wear and use their BWC devices. Table 3 represents the number of incidents where at least one BWC video was found that captured all or part of the subject’s resistance and/or the officer’s use of force.

Table 3. Frequency of incidents where any application of force was captured on BWC

N

%

Yes

25

89.3%

No

3

10.7%

Total

28

In 89.3% of the incidents reviewed (25 of 28), one or more involved and/or witness officers activated a BWC that resulted in a video recording of portions of the event. Two incidents in the “N/A” category (note reflected in the table above) did not require a witness or involved officer to capture the use of force on the officer’s BWC due to the rank of the officer, and therefore, even though they were compliant with Department policy, they were excluded from the analysis. Adding those two incidents to the “yes” tally shows the overall compliance with Department policy was 93.3%, an impressive increase in overall compliance from our review of the 2015 sample (86.3%). The Monitoring Team sent the Compliance Bureau and FIT the individual case information for those BWC’s not located. FIT worked quickly to identify missing BWC videos by communicating directly to District personnel. One officer was recently redirected as a result of his failure to activate his BWC.
E. Conduct of Investigation: Photographing Subjects of Force
It is an important, common practice, and a requirement of NOPD policy for use of force investigations to include photographs of arrestees involved in the incident. Taking photographs
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 17 of 71
Page 17 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

of an injured arrestee properly documents the injuries that resulted from the use of force. Similarly, it is important that photographs are taken of an arrestee against whom force was used who is not injured. Photographing an arrestee with or without injuries resulting from a use of force is important to ensuring a complete and accurate investigation is conducted. Of the 30 arrestees against whom force was used by an NOPD officer, 3 were reported as injured by the use of force. (The Monitoring Team identified 6 additional arrestees who were injured when arrested, but not by actions of a police officer.) Table 4 presents a cross-tabulation of the number of arrestees injured by whether photos were taken of the injury.

Table 4

Yes N %

No N %

Yes, but not by officer
N %

Photos taken of injury Yes No Unknown N/A Total

1 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 2 66.7% 20 95.2% 3 50% 0 0.0% 1 4.8% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7%

3

21

6

The Monitoring Team’s review found photos were taken of only 1 of the 3 arrestees injured by an officer use of force (33.3%). Overall, photos were taken of only 2 of the 30 arrestees subject to an officer use of force (6.7%). The results of this 2016 sample are worse than the already problematic results of the 2015 sample (which showed an overall rate of 11.4% of arrestees subjected to an officer use of force were photographed). Additionally, the Department showed no progress in photographing arrestees who were injured by a source other than an officer (1 arrestee photographed in both the 2015 and 2016 sample).
The Monitoring Team sent the Compliance Bureau and FIT a listing of force tracking numbers, which indicated missing and required incident photographs, for their review and follow-up.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 18 of 71
Page 18 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

F. Injuries to Arrestee or Officer

Table 5 illustrates the frequency and type of arrestee injuries found documented in force statements and use of force reports.

Table 5. Frequency and type of arrestee injuries

Type of injury

N

%

No Injury Unknown Treatment Treated by EMT Other Injury/ Treated & Released at Hospital Injury not caused by NOPD Missing

3

10%

1

3.3%

1

3.3%

1

3.3%

6

20%

18

60.0%

Total

30

Unfortunately, 60% of the investigation reports (18 of 30) failed to state whether the arrestee was injured or not, which resulted in a high percentage of incidents coded with “missing” injury data. All reports were signed by a reviewing supervisor, and therefore this finding reflects negatively on the sufficiency and completeness of the supervisor’s review of the reports submitted by the involved officers. The 2016 sample, however, showed a lower percentage of reports missing injury information than the 2015 sample (60% in 2016 compared to 72% in 2015).
It is important in all use of force investigations for the officer to report the nature of any injury to the subject of force. It is also important to document that the arrestee was not injured when that is the case. Similarly, a supervisor is required to independently determine if the subject of force was injured, and ensure the injury is properly documented in the case report, force statement and the supervisor’s use of force report of his investigation.
Table 6 depicts the number of officers injured during use of force incidents.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 19 of 71
Page 19 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Where any officers injured?

Type of injury

N

Minor Injury/No Treatment

1

Treated and Released

2

No injury

27

Total

30

%
3.3% 6.7% 90.0%

Similar to the results of the 2015 audit, our review found a majority of force encounters did not result in the officer being injured.

G. Conduct of the Investigation: Supervisor’s Response to Scene

NOPD policy only requires a supervisor to respond to the scene of Level 2 through 4 use of force incidents. Nonetheless, on occasion NOPD sends a supervisor to the scene of a Level 1 use of force incident. Table 7 shows the frequency with which a supervisor responded to the scene of Levels 1 through 4 use of force incidents.

Table 7. Frequency of use of force incidents where a supervisor responded to the scene

Supervisor on scene
Yes

Level I
5

Level II
9

Level III
1

Level IV
2

Total
17

No

N/A

0

0

0

0

Total

17

Our review found that supervisors responded to the scene of all Levels 2 through 4 use of force incidents, a 100% compliance rate. Furthermore, although not required by Department policy, our review found that supervisors responded to the scene of 5 Level 1 use of force incidents. This 100% compliance rate shows significant improvement from the 2015 sample (supervisors responded to the scene of Level 2 use of force incidents at a rate of only 43.7% in 2015). The Department should be commended for this significant improvement.
H. Conduct of Investigation: Sufficiency of Supervisor’s Use of Force Report
Similar to our review of the force statements, the Monitoring Team found deficiencies in the quality of the supervisor reports in 10 of the 30 incidents reviewed. A few illustrative examples appear below.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 20 of 71
Page 20 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• A sergeant arrived on the scene of an use of force incident between an intoxicated subject and an NOPD officer. The officer stated that, prior to the sergeant’s arrival, the suspect swayed his arms and hands at the officer and the officer responded by striking the suspect in the mouth – a Level 3 use of force. The sergeant conducted a use of force investigation that was deficient in several respects: (1) although the sergeant conducted audio interviews, they were rolling and continued from one person to the next; (2) the sergeant asked several leading questions in his interviews of both the subject and the officer; (3) the supervisor failed to take photographs of the scene, officer, and suspect; and (4) the supervisor failed to inquire about the original complaint of a medical issue. In addition to the on-scene deficiencies, the supervisor did not adequately assess the level of force and whether there were lesser force options in the report.
• A supervisor responded to the hospitalization of a subject after a Level 4 use of force. Officers responded to a report of an altercation, and, upon arrival, one of the individuals fled. Officers pursued, located, and attempted to question the suspect. After a few moments, an officer stated he went “hands on” with the subject, placing him in a head lock and taking him to the ground (injuring both the officer and the suspect). The handcuffed suspect resisted being placed in the rear of the squad car and, when finally placed into the backseat, fell into the seat well. The suspect was returned to his seat and transported to the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital, the supervisor requested to interview the suspect, but was informed the subject was placed into an induced coma due to his behavior. The supervisor failed to request any medical records or evaluate the use of force and suspect’s injury. Additionally, Department policy requires the supervisor to notify FIT of a Level 4 use of force, which the supervisor failed to do.
• A supervisor failed to ensure all witness officers submitted force statements as a result of a Level 2 use of force.
Overall, the Monitoring Team’s review of 2016 supervisor reports shows a marked improvement in the quality of those reports and an improved effort on the part of supervisors to track down all witness officers and include their information in the final report as compared to our review of the 2015 data.
I. Conduct of the Investigation: Reasonable Suspicion
In addition to considering the propriety of the force used, the Monitoring Team also considered the propriety of the encounter that led to the use of force. Table 8 presents the frequencies of how each initial encounter was initiated and whether there was reasonable suspicion to initiate the encounter with the subject of the use of force.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 21 of 71
Page 21 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Cross-tabulation of how encounter was initiated by whether the officer had reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion

How was encounter initiated?

Yes No

Total

Dispatched

18

0

18

Flagged by Citizen

2

0

2

Crime in Progress

2

0

2

Terry Stop

3

0

3

Follow up investigation

2

0

2

Warrant Service

3

0

3

Total

30

0

30

As shown above, all encounters resulting in use of force incidents were supported by reasonable suspicion. This perfect score is slightly better than the near-perfect results of the 2015 sample (97.7% reasonable suspicion).

J. Resistance Level by How the Encounter was Initiated

Table 9 cross-tabulates how the encounter was initiated by the level of resistance presented by the subject.

Table 9. Cross-tabulation of how the encounter was initiated and instrumentality of resistance

Instrumentality of resistance

How the encounter was
initiated

Compliant

Verbal Resistance

Braced, stiffened

Attempted to flee

Pulled away/ resisted cuffing

Strikes with hand, fist, or feet

Weapon (knife, club, etc.)

Other

Total

1-Dispatched 1

2

1

3

7

1

1

2

18

2-Crime in

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

progress

3-Terry stop 0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

4-Follow-up 0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

3

5-Warrant

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

service

6- Other

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

Total

2

3

2

8

9

2

1

3

30

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 22 of 71
Page 22 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Our review found officers were dispatched to 18 of the 30 incidents. Subjects were compliant with the officer in only 6.7% of encounters that resulted in a use of force (2 of 30 use of force incidents), and subjects fled in 26% of encounters that resulted in a use of force (8 of 30 use of force incidents). The “compliant” category consists of use of force incidents where an officer drew and pointed their firearm at the subject, and the subject then complied with the officer’s direction.

K. Instrumentality of Resistance by Instrumentality of Force

Officers use force in a variety of ways. The table below cross-tabulates the type of force used by the level of resistance offered by the subject.

Table 10. Cross-tabulation of instrumentality of resistance by instrumentality of force

Instrumentality of force

CEW Laser Paining

Pointed firearm

Come along/ Pressure Point

Baton Strikes

Forcible Takedown

Hand/Fist

Strikes

CEW

Total

Instrumentality of resistance

Compliant

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

Verbal Resistance

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

Braced, stiffened

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

Attempted to flee

1

2

1

0

2

0

2

8

Pulled away/ resisted cuffing

2

1

4

1

0

1

0

9

Strikes with hand, fist or feet

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

Weapon (knife, club, etc.)

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Other

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

Total

6

9

5

1

4

3

2

30

As the table shows, 30% of uses of force involved the pointing of a firearm (9 of 30 use of force incidents).4 In 3 of the 9 incidents, the subject was either compliant (2) or passively resisting (1),
yet the audit found the officers did not explain their justification for pointing the firearm at the subject.

4

The small number of witness officers makes it difficult to draw more than generalized conclusions here.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 23 of 71
Page 23 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

L. Conduct of the Investigation: Interview the Subject of Force

NOPD Policy and the Consent Decree requires Level 2 through 4 subjects of force to be interviewed. As reflected in table 11 below, we found inconsistency in supervisory efforts to interview the subjects of force.

Table 11. Subject interview status in use of force incidents

N

%

Subject was interviewed

6

Subject refused interview

1

Unknown

4

Subject was not available for interview

1

50%
8.3% 33.3% 8.3%

Total

12

Our audit found only 50% of subjects were interviewed (6 of 12 subjects), and it was unknown whether an additional 24% were interviewed (4 of 12). The Monitoring Team sent the Compliance Bureau and FIT a listing of force tracking numbers, which indicated missing and required incident photographs, for their review and follow-up.
M. Conduct of the Investigation: Investigative Findings
The investigating supervisor is required to review of the evidence gathered and make a determination as to whether the officer’s use of force was within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law. Also, the investigating supervisor is required to assess the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser force options. The table below crosstabulates the conclusions reached by the supervising officer with the Monitoring Team’s independent review.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 24 of 71
Page 24 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Cross-tabulation of NOPD findings by OCDM findings

NOPD findings Justified Not Justified Further Review
Total

OCDM findings

Unreasonable 0 1 0

Reasonable 28 0 0

1

28

Intend to review later 0 0 1
1

Total 28 1 1
30

As reflected above, in 96.6% of the uses of force (28 of 29), the investigating supervisor found the use of force justified. Of the 28 cases found to be justified by NOPD investigators, the Monitoring Team determined the use of force reasonable in all 28 incidents. NOPD found the use of force unjustified in one incident, and the Monitoring Team also agreed. The Monitoring Team further confirmed the NOPD took appropriate corrective action.5 One case is pending final assessment due to an on-going criminal investigation. Also, the Monitoring Team found an incident classified initially as a Level 2 use of force incident to be more appropriately classified as a Level 4 use of force incident. The Monitoring Team contacted FIT to notify them of the change in classification.

5

To the Department’s credit, the police district identified and took action on its own in advance of referral to

PIB.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 25 of 71
Page 25 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

X. ANALYSIS OF USES OF FORCE OVER TIME
The Monitoring Team analyzed NOPD data to examine trends in uses of force over time, as well as to compare the uses of force by type of activity, level of force, and other variables. Additionally, the data allow for the examination of trends in arrests for violent crimes and complaints against police, and an investigation of how these factors relate to the use of force. Before discussing the analyses, there are some important issues necessary to mention concerning the data.
First, the data provided by the Compliance Bureau on uses of force prior to 2012 are incomplete and insufficient for any meaningful analysis. For example, the data provided show there were three use of force incidents in 2009, with all three occurring in December. This limited number of use of force incidents contained within a single month of the year suggests that data for these years are incomplete. After January 2012, the data appear more consistent but still fluctuate significantly, as noted later in this report.6
Similar to the use of force data, information on arrests for violent crime are not included in the data prior to January 2012.
Finally, data on complaints against police officers are included from 2009 to the present. Unfortunately, only data on complaints after 2011 will be analyzed in the report because, again, reporting prior to January 2011 is incomplete. No month prior to January 2011 included more than four complaints with many months between January 2009 and December 2010 reporting 0 complaints. While not having any complaints filed against an officer in a month is an admirable goal, it is unlikely to occur. For this reason, data on complaints prior to January 2011 are noted here as being incomplete, and not analyzed further.
A. Total Use of Force Incidents
A trend line showing the reported number of use of force incidents in the NOPD from January 2012 to November 2016 is presented in Figure 1. Two interesting observations can be drawn from this trend line.7
• First, the trend line appeared relatively stable prior to 2015 when the number of use of force incidents increased significantly. This increase almost certainly is due to improvements in reporting practices, which will be discussed in greater detail later in the report.

6

The Monitoring Team recognizes that understandable delays in inputting data into NOPD’s Insight system

could cause some data fluctuations.

7

NOPD’s new Use of Force Policy was implemented on December 6, 2015. See

http://nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force.pdf/ and

http://nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-6-Reporting-Use-of-Force.pdf/.

The policy changed both what constitutes a use of force and the reporting requirements for uses of force.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 26 of 71 Page 26 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Second, since 2015, use of force incidents seem to be decreasing, though it should be noted the data from November 2016 are incomplete.
Figure 1.

To investigate further the apparent decrease in the use of force incidents since January 2015, Figure 2 presents a similar trend line with only data from January 2015 to the present included. As observed in Figure 1, the trend line appears to show lower levels of use of force in 2016 than in 2015. Additionally, lines representing the average number of use of force incidents in a month for 2015 and 2016 are also displayed in Figure 2. The average number of force incidents in 2016 is calculated using only the first 10 months compared to 12 months in 2015. November and December were excluded from the analysis because data were collected in mid-November. Inclusion of these data points with partially collected data would have artificially deflated the average. Still, the average number of use of force incidents in a month decreased, with an average of 126 in 2015 and an average of 102 in 2016. This difference is statistically significant.8

8

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to test for statistical significance, t(18.62)=2.27, p<.05.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 27 of 71 Page 27 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 2.
B. Pointing a Firearm In an effort to improve the reporting of use of force incidents, the NOPD included the pointing of a firearm as a Level 1 use of force incident at the end of 2014. Consistent data on the pointing of a firearm is available from January 2015 to the present. The trend line for the number of times officers pointed a firearm as a use of force incident is presented in Figure 3. The trend line presented is very unstable, with wide variations from one month to the next. The line increases throughout 2015 before decreasing slightly and becoming relatively more stable in 2016. The instability in this trend line is not altogether unexpected because reporting the pointing of a firearm as a use of force incident was new in 2015. Inconsistencies in officers’ reporting behaviors likely occurred throughout the early stages of the policy change. As officers and supervisors became more familiar with the requirements, reporting became more stable.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 28 of 71 Page 28 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Figure 3.
As discussed earlier, Figure 1 showed a large increase in the total number of use of force incidents in 2015. This increase could be a result of the policy change to classify the pointing of a firearm as a use of force incident. Prior to this policy change, officers who pointed a firearm but did not use any other type of force against a suspect would not have reported any use of force and the incident would not have contributed to the total use of force numbers in Figure 1. After this change, this incident would be included in the total and it would have contributed to the use of force numbers in Figure 1. To demonstrate the impact of this policy change on the use of force numbers the total use of force trend line is included with the pointing a firearm trend line in Figure 4.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 29 of 71 Page 29 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Figure 4.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the large increase in use of fore incidents corresponds almost directly with the inclusion of pointing a firearm and the increases in reporting that followed. Figure 5 presents trend lines showing a similar conclusion. The dashed line is the same total number of use of force incidents presented in Figures 1 and 4. The solid line shows the total number of use of force incidents with incidents of pointing a firearm subtracted out. Thus, it is an attempt to approximate what the total use of force line would have looked like without the policy change. The line does not have the large increase seen in Figure 1 and is much more stable. It would appear then, that the apparent increase in the use of force starting in early 2015 was likely the result of improved reporting practices rather than actual increases in the use of force.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 30 of 71 Page 30 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Figure 5.
C. Use of Force by Activity Type The data provided also allowed for comparisons of trends in use of force by the type of activity the NOPD was engaged in at the time force was used. The previous analysis demonstrated that use of force reporting was drastically changed by the change in policy to include pointing a firearm. The limited number of use of force incidents reported prior to January 2015 as well as the change in policy makes comparisons of use of force by call type prior to January 2015 problematic. As a result, comparisons by call type are limited to data from January 2015 to the present. Individual trend lines for each call type from January 2015 to November 2016 can be found in Appendix B, however, each line is relatively stable with seemingly random peaks and valleys.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 31 of 71 Page 31 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Figure 6.
One notable exception to this observation is the “Other” activity type. Figure 6 shows the individual trend line for “Other.” The line increases rapidly to a peak of 44 incidents in October 2015. After hitting this peak, “Other” incidents drastically decreased to a relatively stable line at around 10 incidents per month. This drastic change has two possible explanations. The first is that the NOPD had a drastic decrease in “Other” use of force incidents in November 2015. The second is that the NOPD improved their reporting practices and better classified use of force incidents beginning in November 2015. Thus, the drastic decrease is not a decrease in incidents per se, but is the result of “Other” incidents being placed into more descriptive categories.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 32 of 71 Page 32 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 7.
In addition to the individual trend lines shown in Figure 6 and Appendix B, the data allowed for the comparison of use of force incidents across different types of activities. Figure 7 presents this comparison in the form of multiple trend lines. Notably, calls for service make up the largest share of use of force incidents at most time points with arrests being the second largest and occasionally the largest. “Other” activities competed for the highest share of use of force incidents during the large increase leading up to October 2015, but then dropped to one of the lowest shares of use of force following the drastic decrease discussed above. Finally, pedestrian stops, serving warrants, and traffic stops had relatively similar shares of use of force incidents that remained stable over time. Table 1 presents summary information for the trend lines presented in Figure 7. Please note that the sums and means presented in Table 1 are calculated using only data from January 2015 to October 2016, which is consistent with the earlier mean analysis of Figure 2. As with Figure 2, this is done to remove any artificial deflation that would occur from including incomplete data for the month of November 2016. As expected, the greatest share of use of force incidents came from calls for service (903, 41.05 per month). The second largest share came from arrests (605, 27.50 per month) with pedestrian stops, traffic stops, serving warrants, and other activities all averaging less than 20 use of force incidents per month.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 33 of 71
Page 33 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Use of Force by Activity Type

Average (monthly)

Arrests

27.50

Calls for Service

41.05

Pedestrian Stop

8.00

Serving Warrants

6.41

Traffic Stop

12.23

Other

18.50

Unknown

1.23

Total

114.91

Total since 2015 605 903 176 141 269 407 27
2528

D. Pointing a Firearm by Activity Type
Comparisons of use of force by type of activity can be broken down even further to compare incidents of officers pointing a firearm across the various policing activities examined previously. Analyses for the pointing of a firearm are limited to the time period from January 2015 to the present as the policy change that initiated the recording of these incidents did not take place until late 2014. Figure 8 presents the trend lines for these incidents.
Figure 8.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 34 of 71
Page 34 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Similar to total use of force, calls for service appears to make up the largest share of pointing a firearm incidents. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the direction or shape of any of the trend lines presented here as they all appear to grow in both size and volatility across the period examined. This growth is likely due to officers becoming increasingly familiar with the new policy on reporting incidents of pointing a firearm. Despite these limited conclusions, the rapid increase and dramatic reduction in “Other” incidents can be seen in these incidents as well.

Table 2. Pointing a Firearm by Activity Type

Average (monthly)

Arrests

5.73

Calls for Service

13.05

Pedestrian Stop

2.41

Serving Warrants

5.55

Traffic Stop

6.64

Other

5.55

Unknown

0.45

Total

39.36

Total since 2015 126 287 53 122 146 122 10 866

Table 2 presents similar information as Table 1, but with pointing a firearm rather than total use of force measured from January 2015 to October 2016. Consistent with Table 1 and the examination of the trend lines, calls for service (287, 13.05 per month) made up the largest share of pointing a firearm incidents. Surprisingly, however, the second largest share of pointing a firearm incidents was in the traffic stops category (146, 6.64 per month). All activity types, with the exception of calls for service, had a monthly average below 10 incidents per month.
It is important to provide a note of caution regarding the data in Tables 1 and 2. While these data can tell the story about which activity types involve a greater portion of use of force incidents, they are not able to speak to relative risk. In other words, it would be inappropriate to assume use of force is more likely to occur during a call for service than while serving a warrant because the data do not include any information on the frequency with which each activity type occurs in NOPD’s operations.
E. Use of Force by Level of Force
The data provided allow for analysis of the use of force by force level. As with the previous use of force data discussed here, reporting prior to January 2015 is incomplete and inconsistent. Examination of the raw data shows that prior to 2014 nearly every use of force incident was classified as level “N/A.” Some reporting improvements occurred during 2014, but a large portion of use of force incidents still fell within the “N/A” category. Since January 2015, however, only one use of force incident has been placed in this category. Thus, analyses reported below will be limited to the time period from January 2015 to the present.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 35 of 71 Page 35 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
A trend line for Level 1 use of force incidents is presented in Figure 9. The trend line for Level 1 incidents is particularly interesting because it has a rapid increase and drastic fall that resembles the trend line for “Other” activity types examined above. Unfortunately, because data are reported at the month level, it cannot be definitively stated here that the spike in “Other” incidents and the spike in Level 1 incidents comes from the same incidents. However, this is a question that deserves attention by the NOPD Compliance Bureau. Figure 9.
Figure 10 displays multiple trend lines for each level of force on the same plot. While the Level 1 plot has an interesting spike that was just discussed, the Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 trend lines remain remarkably stable over time. Less serious use of force incidents appear to be more common when compared to more serious use of force incidents. However, the L4 trend line does appear to be slightly higher than the Level 3 trend line at various points during the period of interest.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 36 of 71 Page 36 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 10.

To investigate further this comparison, Table 3 presents summary information on the use of force from January 2015 to October 2016. As with the previous tables, the total and averages are calculated using data from this time period because incomplete data from November 2016 would artificially lower these values. As anticipated, L1 incidents make up the majority of use of force incidents (2021, 91.86 per month), while L2 is the next most common use of force incident (459, 20.86 per month). L4 (41, 1.86 per month) does, in fact, make up a larger number of use of force incidents than L3 incidents (4, 0.18 per month).

Table 3. Use of Force by Force Level

Average (monthly)

L1

91.86

L2

20.86

L3

0.18

L4

1.86

N/A

0.05

Total

114.82

Total since 2015 2021 459 4 41 1 2526

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 37 of 71 Page 37 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
F. Non-Use of Force Outcomes Besides use of force, the data provided allowed for examination of two other measures: complaints and arrests for violent crimes. Figure 11 presents the trend line for arrests for violent crimes. As mentioned in the introduction, data on arrests for violent crimes was only available for January 2012 to the present. The plot appears to show a trend of decreasing arrests for violent crimes from January 2012 to the present. The dashed line represents a fitted line estimating the overall trend in the data from January 2012 to September 2016 and appears to have a slight negative slope. Data after September 2016 were excluded from the fitted line because they were unusually low (possibly due to incomplete reporting) and represented outliers. Figure 11.
Figure 12 presents the trend line for complaints filed with the police department. As mentioned in the introduction, though data is available from prior to January 2011 only data after this point will be analyzed due to the incomplete nature of earlier data. The complaints trend line has two notable features. The first being a large spike in early 2012. One possible explanation for this spike could have been implementation of the Consent Decree, which was signed in 2012. While speculative, it could be that publicity surrounding the Consent Decree encouraged citizens to be more willing to file complaints. Prior to this point, citizens may have felt uncomfortable filing complaints or felt that complaints would have little effect. The other notable feature of the complaints trend line is an apparent decrease from January 2014 to the present.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 38 of 71 Page 38 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 12.
G. Potential Relationships Finally, the data examined here provide an opportunity to explore potential relationships between use of force and violent crime arrests, and use of force and complaints. Before presenting any results, caution should be urged in drawing too many inferences from these analyses. The data are limited in their capabilities and any relationships discussed do not consider the possibility of influences coming from any other source. That is, some factor not included in the data could explain potential relationships between use of force and the factors explored here, but this possibility is beyond the scope of this analysis. To explore potential relationships between use of force and violent crime arrests or complaints, Pearson correlations were estimated. Pearson correlations can range in value from -1 to +1. Negative correlations indicate that higher values on one measure are related to lower values on the other measure. Positive correlations indicate that higher values on one measure are related to higher values on the other measure. Values farther from 0 indicate stronger relationships, while values close to 0 represent weak or non-existent relationships. To test for correlation only data from January 2015 to October 2015 were used. The inclusion of pointing a firearm as a use of force incident drastically changed the way use of force was measured, and as a result, testing for correlations with data prior to this policy shift would bias the estimate.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 39 of 71
Page 39 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
No relationship between violent crime arrests and use of force was found in the Pearson correlation. The test produced an estimate of r=.08 that was not statistically significant. However, a moderately strong relationship was found between complaints and use of force. The test produced an estimate of r=.48 that was statistically significant.9 This suggests that there are larger numbers of complaints when there are more use of force incidents. While it seems logical that citizens would be more likely to complain when more force is being used, caution should be used in making this inference as this relationship could be caused by other factors not included in this data. To illustrate the relationship between use of force and complaints, Figure 13 is a plot of the trend lines for both measures. The trend lines for both measures seem to be decreasing over time.10
Figure 13.

9

p<.05

10

The Monitoring Team recognizes that understandable delays in inputting data into NOPD’s Insight system

could cause some data fluctuations.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 40 of 71
Page 40 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. ASSESSMENT OF NOPD USE OF FORCE DATA INTEGRITY
A. Resisting Arrest Analysis
To verify that officers are complying with the mandated reporting requirements, the Monitoring Team obtained from NOPD a database of all police reports from the 3rd Quarter of 2015 wherein an arrestee was charged with battery of a police officer, assault of a police officer, or resisting arrest. We conducted a similar review in 2014. Such events are likely to involve the use of force to overcome the resistance or to defend against the assault or battery. The database we received identified 170 reports of events occurring in the 3rd Quarter of 2015 wherein an offender was charged with one of those offenses.
We randomly selected 27 of the reports to review. We read and reviewed the 27 police incident reports and determined 12 of them indicted force was used by an NOPD Officer during the arrest. We then matched the resulting item numbers to item numbers found in the listing of the use of force events logged on the FIT force log. Our comparison found that all 12 events were properly captured and logged on NOPD’s FIT force log.
The Monitoring Team also audited the 15 reports that did not indicate any force was used. We reviewed the police reports and BWC videos to verify no force was used by the involved officers. We found no evidence that force was used against any subjects within these 15 case reviews.
Thus, our review of resisting arrest or battery of police officer charges found NOPD accurately reported uses of force when required in the 12 incidents where force was used, and accurately reported non-force encounters in the other 15 investigations.
B. Injury to Arrested Individuals
To further verify that officers are complying with the mandated reporting requirements, and, thus, that data used by the Monitoring Team has integrity, we randomly sampled 42 injury incidents from a total of 421 injury-to-arrestee incidents for the 3rd Quarter 2015.
We accessed the Electronic Police Report (“EPR”) system and IA Pro data base for case files. Several of the 42 incident reports contained additional summary reports, which we also reviewed. The Monitoring Team reviewed all reports associated with the 42 police incidents and determined force was used by an NOPD Officer in 5 of the arrests. For those five arrests, the Monitoring Team checked with the Force Investigation Team database to determine if the use of force was reported by the arresting officers. We found a Force Tracking Number, force statements and use of force reports for all 5 cases.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 41 of 71 Page 41 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. New Orleans Police Department Lawsuits To verify officers are complying with mandated reporting requirements, the Monitoring Team conducted an audit of NOPD Officers named in State or Federal lawsuits alleging excessive use of force. We reviewed United States District Court Civil Actions and Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans lawsuits filed in the spring and fall of 2016. We did not locate any filed lawsuits alleging excessive use of force. In fact, the Monitoring Team did not locate any litigation for the past two years alleging excessive use of force.
D. Citizen Allegations or Rank-initiated Excessive Use of Force Complaints The Monitoring Team conducted a review of misconduct allegations initiated by citizens or NOPD supervisors to identify possible un-reported use of force. With the cooperation of the Public Integrity Bureau, we identified five allegations of excessive force lodged during the 3rd Quarter of 2015. We obtained the associated case files through the Electronic Police Report (EPR) system and IA Pro data base. We reviewed all five citizen or rank-initiated complaints. We found no evidence that a use of force was not documented by the accused NOPD officer. In fact, where the investigation determined force was used, the involved officer and her/ his supervisor complied with NOPD reporting and investigation requirements. Our audit, however, did identify opportunities for the improvement in the way NOPD investigates use of force complaints. The Monitoring Team shared these findings with NOPD and the Court, and NOPD has taken steps to further improve its processes.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 42 of 71
Page 42 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIC USE OF FORCE ANALYSIS (3RD QUARTER 2015)
As previously reported, the Consent Decree requires NOPD to develop and implement force policies, training, and review procedures that ensure force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and any unreasonable use of force is identified and responded to appropriately. (CD III) This section provides a historic assessment of NOPD’s compliance with those requirements.
The Monitoring Team readily recognizes the data upon which this analysis is based are historic, and much has changed since the events underlying these data took place, including the drafting of new policies, the development of new training, and the implementation of new practices. Our review of 2015 data encompasses uses of force that preceded the creation of these policies, training, and practices. Nonetheless, the Monitoring Team believes historic data are relevant as a means of comparison as NOPD progresses.
It is important to note much effort has been undertaken by the NOPD throughout 2016 on issues covered by this Report. It also is important to note that, though the Department’s policies on Use of Force, Reporting Use of Force, and Use of Force Review Board were approved in March 27, 2015, it took the rest of 2015 to complete the training of all officers. Additionally, NOPD conducted its first Use of Force Review Board (“UFRB” or the “Board”) hearing on January 22, 2016. We reported on the conduct of the Board in our August 2016 Quarterly Report, and provide an update later in this report. The UFRB meets regularly and undertakes focused and detailed assessments of the events, decisions, and actions that comprise each use of force incident. The findings of the Board have resulted in changes in policy, training, and equipment, all of which are having a positive effect in managing use of force by officers.
Previously, the Monitoring Team performed an audit of the NOPD’s reported uses of force in 2014. In the 2014 audit, the Monitoring Team attempted to review all 413 uses of force reported by NOPD officers (although the resulting report only included a review of 178 uses of force). While the 2014 audit attempted to review all use of force events that occurred in 2014, the 2015 audit was more limited in scope. The 2015 audit consisted of a random sample of 44 use of force incidents (of 203 total incidents) reported by NOPD officers in the 3rd Quarter of 2015. No Level 3 uses of force were reported by NOPD officers in the 3rd Quarter of 2015, and therefore our review consisted entirely of Level 1 and 2 uses of force (note, however, due to their inherent seriousness, all Level 4 uses of force are reviewed by the Monitoring Team, and the findings of that review will be covered in a separate report).
Although the 2015 audit sample is smaller than the 2014 audit, the review served a similar purpose – to analyze NOPD’s compliance with department policy and the requirements of the Consent Decree in properly documenting and investigating uses or force. It is also important to keep in mind that, with NOPD’s increased emphasis on reporting uses of force, the likelihood of a use of force being reported has increased (as demonstrated by 203 use of force incidents being reported by NOPD officers in the 3rd Quarter of 2015 alone as compared to 413 reported uses of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 43 of 71
Page 43 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

force in all of 2014). Through policy improvement, training, supervisory oversight, and monitoring, an increase in the number of reported use of force events was expected.
With the exception of the scope of the review, the 2015 audit adhered to the same review methodology as the 2014 use of force audit. For each of the 44 randomly selected files, the Monitoring Team captured approximately 100 data elements to assist in assessing the completeness and sufficiency of the investigation and the appropriateness of the Department’s findings. This analysis included reviewing all available documentation, such as the investigating supervisor’s use of force report, officer force statements, Body Worn Camera (“BWC”) videos, audio/video taped interviews (if taken), photographs (if taken), and the Department’s findings as to whether the use of force was justified or not. The Monitoring Team had full access to NOPD’s Electronic Police Reporting (“EPR”) system, the BWC videos, the Conducted Electrical Weapons (“CEWs,” more commonly known as “Tasers”®) videos, and the “IA Pro” database – the NOPD’s citizen complaint and force data management system (IA Pro maintains a digitized file of all records associated with each event, including – all case reports, video interviews, CEW downloads, photos, and other investigative files and reports).11 These records enabled us to complete more comprehensive reviews of each use of force event, identify deficiencies in the investigations by supervisors, and assess the sufficiency of the various reports required from officers.
While the full results of our comprehensive use of force analysis are set forth in Appendix XV.C to this Report, the following summarizes the more significant findings:
• Although the data show a higher percentage of individual involved officers submitted the required force statements in the 2015 as compared to the 2014 sample (93.2% in 2015 compared to 90.6% in 2014), even after the additional training performed in 2015, not all involved officers are fulfilling their obligations. Furthermore, the data show a lower percentage of witness officers submitted the required force statements in 2015 as compared to 2014 (71% in 2015 compared to 76% in 2014).
• Of the 44 use of force incidents reviewed in the 2015 sample, every involved and witness officer in a specific incident complied with the reporting requirements in 88.6% of the incidents reviewed (39 of 44 incidents). The 2015 audit shows an increase in compliance at the incident level as compared to the 2014 audit (88.6% compliance at the incident level in 2015 as compared to 77.5% compliance at the incident level in 2014).

11

NOPD implemented IA Pro field companion Blue Team in December 2015. This electronic reporting

system allows supervisors to enter all reports submitted by and/or related to officers using or witnessing

force electronically, including the supervisor’s investigative report. Prior to Blue Team, field supervisors

had to send investigative reports via email and/or inter-office mail. The case investigations were then

uploaded into IA Pro by PIB FIT. As the Department transitioned to this new technology, many of the case

files documents were not entered into the IA Pro database. Consequently, the Monitoring Team had to

make several requests for specific reports not found in IA Pro, but necessary to complete our review.

NOPD accommodated every Monitoring Team request.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 44 of 71 Page 44 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• In 86.3% of the use of force incidents reviewed (38 of 44), one or more involved and/or witness officers activated a BWC that resulted in a video recording of at least some portion of the incident. In 13.7% of the incidents reviewed (6 of 44), neither an involved nor a witness officer activated a BWC that captured all of part of the subject’s resistance and/or the officer’s use of force.
• Of the 16 Level 2 use of force incidents reviewed, supervisors either failed to respond to the scene or to document whether they responded to the scene in 43.7% of use of force incidents (7 of 16 use of force incidents).
• Our audit found only 56.25% of subjects of Level 2 through 4 uses of force were interviewed (9 of 16 subjects) in compliance with Department policy, while 25% either were not interviewed (3 of 16) or it was unknown whether they were interviewed (1 of 16).
In sum, the Monitoring Team’s review of the 2015 sample use of force data showed the Department had room for further improvement in submitting use of force statements (at both the individual officer-level and the overall incident-level), ensuring the use of force statements submitted included the required information, and ensuring all information was gathered and submitted with their use of force statement (e.g., photographs, interviews, supervisor determinations). As discussed previously in this Report, however, the Monitoring Team’s review of more recent data has shown improvement in key areas.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 45 of 71
Page 45 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. ASSESSMENT OF NOPD’S USE OF FORCE REVIEW BOARD PROCESS
In late 2015, the Monitoring Team began to provide technical assistance to NOPD FIT and Senior Level Executives for the implementation of the Use of Force Review Board. The Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) serves as a quality control mechanism to ensure timely reviews of all serious use of force investigations to determine the appropriateness of the investigative findings, and to quickly appraise use of force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.
NOPD conducted its first Use of Force Review Board hearing on January 22, 2016. We reported on the conduct of the Board in our Quarterly Report issued in August. The UFRB continues to engage in focused and detailed assessments of the events, decisions and actions that comprise each use of force incident. The Board’s discussions are thoughtful, probing, introspective, and substantive. Deputy Chief Paul Noel facilitates the sessions and is an active participant. He ensures that every member of the Board and other participants are heard. Voting members of the Board, including PIB Chief Arlinda Westbrook and ISB Chief Rannie Mushatt, are active participants. Non-voting members and attendees, including the Academy Commander, a District Commander, the SWAT Commander, and other participants, also substantively and effectively contribute to the discussion. In the view of the Monitoring Team, all are doing a great job.
At each session of the Board, the Force Investigation Team provides a detailed presentation of the investigation and facts of each case before the Board. The investigators use visual aids in their presentation, and provide detailed descriptions of the actions of each participants in the use of force event, often starting with the actions of the 9-1-1 center call taker and ending with the first NOPD supervisor who arrives on the scene and establishes incident control.
NOPD FIT has designated a sergeant to serve as the Use of Force Review Board secretary. This person is responsible for assembling and distributing the investigative files for the Board’s review in preparation for the hearing. He also records the minutes and findings of the Board and, most importantly, ensures the findings and recommendations of the Board are communicated to the responsible Department entity. He follows-up to ensure the recommendations are implemented and reports back to the Board at the next session on the actions taken.
To share just one example of actions taken by the Board in a serious use of force, consider the following case. In this incident, officers pulled up alongside a car of folks using drugs. The driver stepped outside the car at the request of the officer. The requesting officer proceeded to pat down the subject while his partner is talking with a second occupant of the vehicle. While the subject was being patted down, the subject bolted down a side street with a gun still in his belt. He then turned and shot at the pursuing officers. One of the pursuing officers returned fire, striking the subject.
The Board found the shooting justified, but avoidable. At the time the officer fired his weapon at the fleeing subject, the subject already had shot at the officers, which was confirmed by BWC video evidence. But the Board, to its credit, unanimously found that the involved officers
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 46 of 71 Page 46 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
employed bad tactics, which allowed the subject to flee while armed. If the officers had properly secured the subject and had conducted a proper search, they likely would have seized and secured the weapon before he was able to reach for it, thus avoiding the shooting. The Board identified other bad tactics that adversely affected the outcome as well. The Board gave very specific directions to the training commander on what they expected in terms of follow-up action, and they demanded reports back to them to ensure the actions were taken.
* * * To date, NOPD has conducted twelve Use of Force Board Hearings. The UFRB Secretary tracked and followed up with all Use of Force Board recommendations. The Monitoring Team has reviewed the Force Board Hearing Secretary files for compliance on Board recommendations and the files are well organized, accurate and reflect what the Board recommended. In one case, the Training Academy went beyond the training recommendation of the Board as a result of the performance of the officer in the remedial training. Training Academy personnel felt the officer required additional tactical training beyond what the Board requested due to observing deficiencies in the officer’s performance during the training.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 47 of 71 Page 47 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. CONCLUSION As detailed above, NOPD has made and continues to make significant progress in reducing uses of force and in fully investigating potential improper uses of force. Notwithstanding the Department’s significant progress, the Monitoring Team still sees officers occasionally making mistakes. NOPD observers and members of the community must keep in mind, however, that no police department is perfect – just like no member of the community is perfect. And while the Monitoring Team believes in holding the NOPD and its officers to a very high standard, we do not believe any police department should be held to an impossibly high standard of perfection. Police officers are human and are bound to make mistakes. What we all should expect, however, is that when mistakes are made, they are openly identified, honestly evaluated, and meaningful remedied. We offer this distinction between a flawed department and flawed individuals because it is an important one. Just as we cannot let the Department’s progress blind us to areas in need of further reform, we likewise cannot let the mistakes or misconduct of some blind ourselves to the progress the Department has made in so many areas, including in the extremely important Use of Force area.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 48 of 71 Page 48 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com XV. APPENDIXES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 49 of 71 Page 49 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
A. Appendix A: Use of Force Data
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 50 of 71
Page 50 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix A-1. Use of Force by Activity by Month

Month
January

Year
2015

Total
98

Arrests
0

Calls for Service
51

Not Used
0

February

2015 108

16

45

0

March

2015

78

8

30

0

April

2015 100

30

25

0

May

2015 100

16

26

0

June

2015 138

37

38

0

July

2015 156

35

32

0

August

2015 136

52

27

0

September 2015 137

22

42

0

October

2015 171

32

65

0

November 2015 165

41

55

0

December 2015 122

24

53

1

January

2016 127

35

49

0

February

2016 124

31

52

0

March

2016 122

24

53

0

April

2016 102

24

49

0

May

2016

73

33

15

0

June

2016

88

23

39

0

July

2016

91

37

32

0

August

2016

84

24

40

0

September 2016 105

21

46

0

October

2016 103

40

39

0

November 2016

33

4

20

0

Other
13 25 22 26 27 33 37 34 42 44 24
7 8 8 12 8 5 6 3 2 14 7 8

Pedestrian Stop
9 4 6 4 13 12 7 6 2 3 19 12 11 13 17 6 5 5 3 3 10 6 0

Serving Warrants
4 0 4 3 2 1 16 7 10 13 12 9 10 11 7 6 4 2 2 7 4 7 1

Traffic Stop
13 13
8 10 12 15 29
8 19 14 14 17 14
9 9 9 11 13 14 8 6 4 0

Unknown
8 5 0 2 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 51 of 71
Page 51 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix A-2. Pointing a Firearm by Activity by Month

Month January

Year 2015

Pointing a Firearm
23

Arrests (PF)
1

Calls for Service
(PF)
10

Other (PF)
2

February 2015

37

0

18

5

March

2015

16

1

7

1

April

2015

24

3

3

9

May

2015

20

0

7

2

June

2015

44

1

11

11

July

2015

31

4

13

4

August 2015

64

11

10

11

September 2015

71

12

13

24

October 2015

49

2

18

13

November 2015

48

7

13

6

December 2015

51

1

18

12

January 2016

35

7

12

6

February 2016

38

5

12

0

March

2016

46

3

24

2

April

2016

35

14

11

1

May

2016

25

9

5

1

June

2016

26

3

11

1

July

2016

47

8

14

4

August 2016

32

10

10

1

September 2016

45

14

14

1

October 2016

59

10

33

5

November 2016

22

2

8

2

Pedestrian Stops (PF)
5 0 2 0 5 7 0 3 0 0 1 2 2 2 4 4 0 3 6 2 3 2 1

Serving a Warrant
(PF) 2 2 0 5 2 2 0
16 10
7 12 13
3 9 6 5 7 3 6 4 4 4 8

Traffic Stops (PF)
3 8 4 2 4 10 10 13 12 9 9 5 5 10 7 0 3 5 9 5 9 4 1

Unknown (PF)
0 4 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 52 of 71
Page 52 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix A-3. Use of Force by Level by Month

Month Year L1

L2

L3

L4

NA

January 2015 58

12

0

1

0

February 2015 82

22

0

2

1

March 2015 66

21

0

1

0

April

2015 55

24

0

0

0

May

2015 49

13

1

3

0

June

2015 115

11

0

2

0

July

2015 72

16

0

0

0

August 2015 150

32

1

2

0

September 2015 173

36

0

4

0

October 2015 119

20

0

2

0

November 2015 120

27

0

2

0

December 2015 108

36

0

3

0

January 2016 69

18

0

5

0

February 2016 85

28

0

1

0

March 2016 101

18

0

0

0

April

2016 80

18

0

1

0

May

2016 67

15

0

0

0

June

2016 64

18

0

2

0

July

2016 84

15

1

0

0

August 2016 69

12

0

0

0

September 2016 110

24

0

6

0

October 2016 125

23

1

4

0

November 2016 69

22

0

1

0

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 53 of 71
Page 53 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Appendix A-4. Non-Use of Force Outcomes by Month

Month Year

Complaints

Violent Crime Arrests

January

2015

44

95

February 2015

50

60

March

2015

49

95

April

2015

50

83

May

2015

47

77

June

2015

35

57

July

2015

55

70

August

2015

63

82

September 2015

47

72

October 2015

48

79

November 2015

39

89

December 2015

44

67

January

2016

37

85

February 2016

42

47

March

2016

37

91

April

2016

34

87

May

2016

25

71

June

2016

16

80

July

2016

11

58

August

2016

5

52

September 2016

5

71

October 2016

8

30

November 2016

3

27

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 54 of 71 Page 54 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. Appendix B: Use of Force Graphs
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 55 of 71 Page 55 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix B-1.
Appendix B-2.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 56 of 71 Page 56 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix B-3.
Appendix B-4.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 57 of 71 Page 57 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Appendix B-5.
Appendix B-6.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 58 of 71
Page 58 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. Appendix H: 2016 Comprehensive Use Of Force Analysis (2015 Data)
NOPD uses of force are divided into four levels:
• Level 1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury.
• Level 2 uses of force include use of an CEW (including where a CEW is fired at a person but misses); use of an impact weapon to strike a person but where no contact is made; use of a baton for non-striking purposes (e.g., prying limbs, moving or controlling a person); and weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns).
• Level 3 uses of force include any strike to the head (except for a strike with an impact weapon); use of impact weapons where contact is made (except to the head), regardless of injury; or the destruction of an animal.
• Level 4 uses of force include all serious uses of force, as defined by [the Consent Decree], and shall be investigated by NOPD’s Force Investigation Team.
Each officer who uses a Level 1 force is required to prepare a force statement that completely and accurately describes the force used, including: (1) a detailed account of the incident from the officer’s perspective; (2) the reason for the initial police presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; (4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a description of every type of force used. (CD 78) Supervisors also may require witness officers to prepare a force statement at their discretion, and these statements must be submitted by the end of the work day. The force statement must be reviewed by a supervisor who was neither involved nor a witness to the incident. (CD 83)
Similarly, each officer who uses or witnesses a Level 2 or Level 3 use of force is required to prepare a force statement. In such events, a non-involved supervisor is required to respond to the scene, conduct a thorough investigation into the use of force, and document her/his investigation in a Use of Force Report within 72 hours. (CD 86, 87)
Whenever an officer uses a reportable level of force, the officer must notify a supervisor. Once notified, the supervisor must contact NOPD’s Force Investigations Team (“FIT”). Upon notification, FIT assigns a unique force tracking number (“FTN”) and records sufficient information about the event to enable tracking of the completion of the required reports. The name of the involved and witness officers, the incident report number, the name of the subject the force was used against, and the type and level of force used are recorded on a “force log.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 59 of 71
Page 59 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

1. Compliance with Reporting Requirements
Throughout this Report we refer to an officer who uses force as the “involved” officer. An officer who witnessed the use of force, but did not use force, is referred to as a “witness” officer. The Consent Decree and Department policy requires all involved officers (for Levels 1 through 4 uses of force), and some witness officers (for Levels 2 through 4 uses of force), to submit a use of force statement prior to ending their duty shift. In the 44 incidents we reviewed, there were 88 officers who used force (i.e., involved officers) and 31 witness officers.

Table H-1. Cross Tabulations of Force Statement Found and Involved and Witness Officers

Force Statement Found

Yes

No

Total

N

%

N

%

N

Officer Involved

82

93.2%

6

6.8%

88

Officer Witness

22

71.0%

9

29.0%

31

Total

104

87.4%

15

12.6%

119

As reflected above, force statements were found for 93.2% of involved officers (82 of 88) and for 71% of witness officers (22 of 31). Although the data show a higher percentage of involved officers submitted the required force statements in the 2015 as compared to the 2014 sample (93.2% in 2015 compared to 90.6% in 2014), even after the additional training performed in 2015, not all involved officers are fulfilling their obligations. Furthermore, the data show a lower percentage of witness officers submitted the required force statements in 2015 as compared to 2014 (71% in 2015 compared to 76% in 2014).
During this review, the Monitoring Team noted all involved and witness officers who failed to fulfill their reporting obligations and shared this information with the Compliance Bureau. The Compliance Bureau then coordinated with the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) to ensure the specific officers received discipline and additional training as appropriate, as determined by the District Command Officers.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 60 of 71
Page 60 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Sufficiency of Force Statements
Although our 2015 review showed an increase in compliance with involved officer force statement reporting requirements, several of these reports lacked clear articulation of the reason for the encounter, the type of resistance encountered, and the type of force used. For example:
• One officer stated he ran after a suspect and took him to the ground. The officer does not describe how he took the suspect to the ground.
• One officer stopped an automobile because the driver disregarded a traffic signal and was driving recklessly. The officer does not explain what he meant by driving “recklessly.” The driver ultimately stopped the automobile and the officer pointed his firearm at the driver. The officer did not explain the reason(s) for pointing a firearm at the driver.
• Multiple officers stopped a suspect for a possible drug law violation. After the arrest, the suspect refused to get into the back seat of the police vehicle. The officers state the suspect was “irate” and “pulled away” from officers in a struggle to place the suspect in the squad. The officers do not specify what the “irate” behavior was or describe in detail how he “pulled away” from officers.
• Multiple officers chased a shoplifter running out of a store. As they pursued the suspected shoplifter, two additional officers enter the store. The two officers stated in their force statement they performed “a takedown” on the fleeing suspect. The officers did not describe how they performed the takedown or describe the resistance from the suspect.
• Multiple officers performed a takedown of a suspect, and in their force statement report stated the suspect was “combative” and “aggressive.” The officers do not explain, in terms of the suspect’s actions, what constituted ‘combative” and or “aggressive” behavior.
While the Monitoring Team’s review of these uses of force confirmed the applications of the force were appropriate to the circumstances and consistent with NOPD policy, the lack of clear documentation and the use of non-descriptive, boilerplate statements warrants further attention by NOPD. The Monitoring Team has confirmed these shortcomings are being remedied through enhanced training at the NOPD Police Academy. After collaborating with the Monitoring Team for several months, the NOPD Academy implemented a new, 185 page Integrated Use of Force Lesson Plan. The new and enhanced lesson plan is thorough, covers essential use of force components, and comports to adult-learning principles.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 61 of 71
Page 61 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

3. Each Involved and Witness Officer Submitted Required Reports
As stated above, the Consent Decree and Department policy requires all involved officers (Levels 1 through 4 uses of force) and some witness officers (Levels 2 through 4 uses of force) to submit a use of force statement prior to ending their duty shift. The following table shows the number of incidents in which all involved and witness officers complied with the reporting requirements for that specific incident. For example, if there were 2 involved officers and 2 witness officers for a specific incident, all 4 officers would have to submit the required statement to achieve a “yes” tally in the table below for that specific incident.

Table H-2. Frequency of incidents where all involved and witness officers submitted force statements.

Force statement submitted by all officers

N

%

Yes

39

88.6%

No

5

11.4%

Total

44

As reflected above, of the 44 incidents reviewed in the 2015 sample, every involved and witness officer in a specific incident complied with the reporting requirements in 88.6% of the incidents reviewed (39 of 44 incidents). The 2015 audit shows an increase in compliance at the incident level as compared to the 2014 audit (88.6% compliance at the incident level in 2015 as compared to 77.5% compliance at the incident level in 2014).

It is important to note that, for each of the 5 incidents in which all officers did not submit the required force statements, at least one officer did submit a statement (i.e. there were zero uses of force where no officer submitted a use of force statement). During this review, the Monitoring Team noted all involved and witness officers who failed to fulfill their reporting obligations and shared this information with the Compliance Bureau. The Compliance Bureau then coordinated with the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) to ensure the specific officers received discipline and additional training as appropriate, as determined by the District Command Officers.

4. Capturing Uses of Force on BWC

The Monitoring Team reviewed BWC video to analyze whether NOPD officers were meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree and Department policy to wear and use their BWC

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 62 of 71
Page 62 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

devices. Table 3 represents the number of incidents where at least one BWC video was found that captured all or part of the subject’s resistance and/or the officer’s use of force.

Table H-3. Frequency of incidents where the application of force was captured on BWC

N

%

Yes

38

86.3%

No

6

13.7%

Total

44

In 86.3% of the incidents reviewed (38 of 44), one or more involved and/or witness officers activated a BWC that resulted in a video recording of portions of the event. In 13.7% of the incidents reviewed (6 of 44), neither an involved nor a witness officer activated a BWC that captured all of part of the subject’s resistance and/or the officer’s use of force. During this review, the Monitoring Team noted all involved and witness officers who failed to activate their BWC and shared this information with the Compliance Bureau. The Compliance Bureau then coordinated with the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) to ensure the specific officers received discipline and additional training as appropriate, as determined by the District Command Officers.
5. Conduct of Investigation: Photographing Subjects of Force
It is an important and common practice, and a requirement of NOPD policy, for use of force investigations to include photographs of arrestees involved in the incident. Taking photographs of an injured arrestee properly documents the injuries that resulted from the use of force. Similarly, it is important that photographs are taken of an arrestee against whom force was used who is not injured. Photographing an arrestee with or without injuries resulting from a use of force is important to ensuring a complete and accurate investigation is conducted. Of the 44 arrestees against whom force was used by an NOPD officer, 5 were reported as injured by the use of force. (The Monitoring Team identified 7 additional arrestees who were injured when arrested, but not by actions of a police officer.) Table 4 presents a cross-tabulation of the number of arrestees injured by whether photos were taken of the injury.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 63 of 71
Page 63 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Photos Taken of Injury?
Yes No Unknown
Total

Arrestee Injured?

Yes

No

Yes, but not by officer

N %

N

%

N

%

4 80% 1 2.6%

1

1 20% 38 97.4%

2

0 0.0% 0 0.0%

4

14.3% 28.6% 57.1%

5

39

7

The Monitoring Team’s review found photos were taken of 80% of the arrestees injured by an officer use of force (4 of the 5 arrestees). Overall, however, only 11.4% of arrestees subject to a use of force were photographed (5 of 44), demonstrating the Department needs to make significant improvement in documenting when arrestees are not injured by a use of force. Additionally, only 1 of the 7 arrestees who were injured by something other than the officer’s use of force were photographed. Again, the Department must improve its documentation of injuries not caused by an officer use of force.
The Monitoring Team advised the Compliance Bureau of these findings. The Compliance Bureau, in coordination with PIB FIT, is performing additional oversight of force investigations at the District level to ensure photographs are taken when officers use force or when arrestees are injured irrespective of cause.
6. Conduct of Investigation: Injuries to Officer or Arrestee
Table H-5 illustrates the frequency and type of arrestee injuries found documented in force statements and use of force reports.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 64 of 71
Page 64 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table H-6. Frequency and type of arrestee injuries

Type of injury

N

Other injury/treated and released at hospital

5

Injury not caused by NOPD

7

Injury information missing from report

32

Total

44

%
11.4% 15.9% 72.7%

Unfortunately, 72% of the investigation reports (32 of 44) failed to state whether the arrestee was injured or not, which resulted in a high percentage of incidents coded with “missing” injury data. All reports were signed by a reviewing supervisor, and therefore this finding reflects negatively on the sufficiency and completeness of the supervisor’s review of the reports submitted by the involved officers. The Monitoring Team previously raised this problem with NOPD, and the Department has taken corrective action or is working to remedy this shortcoming.

It is important in all use of force investigations for the officer to report the nature of any injury to the subject of force. It is also important to document that the arrestee was not injured when that is the case. Similarly, a supervisor is required to independently determine if the subject of force was injured, and ensure the injury is properly documented in the case report, force statement and the supervisor’s use of force report of his investigation.

Table H-6 depicts the number of officers injured during use of force incidents. Our audit showed a majority of force encounters did not result in the officer being injured.

Table H-6. Frequency and type of officer injuries

Type of injury

N

%

No injury Injured/declined treatment Treated and released

41

93.2%

1

2.3%

2

4.5%

Total

44

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 65 of 71
Page 65 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

As reflected in the table above, injuries to officers occurred in 6.8% of use of force incidents (3 of 44 incidents), and the Monitoring Team’s review found that none of these injuries to officers were of a serious nature.

7. Conduct of the Investigation: Supervisor’s Response to Scene

NOPD policy only requires a supervisor to respond to the scene of Level 2 through 4 use of force incidents. Nonetheless, on occasion NOPD sends a supervisor to the scene of a Level 1 use of force incident. Table H-7 shows the frequency with which a supervisor responded to the scene of Level 1 and 2 use of force incidents.

Table H-7. Frequency of Level 1 and 2 use of force incidents where supervisor responded

to the scene

Level I

Level II

Supervisor on scene?

N

N

N

Yes No (or undocumented) Total

10 (35.7%)

9 (56.3%)

19

18 (64.3%)

7 (43.7%)

25

28

16

44

Of the 16 Level 2 use of force incidents, supervisors either failed to respond to the scene or to document whether they responded to the scene in 43.7% of use of force incidents (7 of 16 use of force incidents). This failure to respond or document the response is a violation of NOPD policy. The Monitoring Team advised the Compliance Bureau of these findings, and will work with both the Compliance Bureau and District commanders to ensure supervisors are responding to the scene of, and documenting their response to, all Level 2 through 4 use of force incidents.

8. Conduct of The Investigation; Sufficiency of Supervisor’s Use of Force Report

As with force statements, we found deficiencies in the quality of the reports completed by supervisors. We found that the reports compiled by supervisors were deficient in significant areas in 10 of the 44 use of force investigations. Illustrative deficiencies include the following:

•

A sergeant arrived on the scene of a domestic dispute without back up officer

assistance and was confronted by the victim of the incident and an angry suspect.

The sergeant spoke to both individuals and then allowed the suspect to walk back

into the residence. The sergeant walked into the residence and a few minutes later

both the suspect and sergeant exited the residence. The behavior by the sergeant

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 66 of 71
Page 66 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

is a significant tactical issue and officer safety concern. The sergeant was then assisted by back-up officers and an attempt was made to arrest and handcuff the suspect. The suspect was escorted off the front porch from the residence by the sergeant and back-up officer. The suspect broke away from the officers and fled from the officers into street. He was eventually apprehended by an additional officer with the use of a CEW. The involved sergeant commenced to investigate the use of force, when he should have called for a non-involved supervisor to conduct the investigation. The force statement provides the suspect was “actively resisting” and there is no further clarification on the suspect’s actions. It is left to interpretation as to the meaning of “actively resisting.” The sergeant interviewed the suspect, whom he initially conversed with at the onset of the incident. Finally, the investigation lacked a witness canvass, a download of CEW video, lack of overall assessment of the force based on tactics, equipment and policy.

•

Officers were dispatched to an area when an individual was attempting to break

into automobiles. Officers located the subject, but he fled. Officers pursued the

subject by foot and eventually pushed the subject to the ground. Initially, NOPD

categorized the force used as Level 1, but the Monitoring Team believes a Level 2

classification is more appropriate. Because of the initial misclassification, a

supervisor was not requested and did not respond to the scene.

•

Officers responded to a call about someone in a canal armed with a metal object.

When officers arrived on the scene, the suspect approached one of the officers

with a pipe and stated “he was God.” The suspect would not communicate with

officers so one officer deployed his CEW on the individual and then handcuffed

him. The suspect remained on his stomach for some time after being handcuffed.

A supervisor responded and investigated the incident. The supervisor’s use of

force report made no mention of a review of the CEW video, and did not include

an overall assessment of force used and if other options were available to officers.

Additionally, there is no mention and/or requested assistance from a CIT officer.

It is important to remember each of these incidents took place in 2015. Each incident was discussed with NOPD both at the time of the use of force and at the conclusion of this audit. Our more recent use of force reviews identified fewer such incidents.

9. Conduct of The Investigation: Reasonable Suspicion

In addition to considering the propriety of the force used, the Monitoring Team also considered the propriety of the encounter that led to the use of force. Table H-8 presents the frequencies of how each initial encounter was initiated and whether there was reasonable suspicion to initiate the encounter with the subject of the use of force.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 67 of 71
Page 67 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table H-8. Cross-tabulation of how encounter was initiated by whether the officer had reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion

How was encounter initiated?

Yes

No

Total

Dispatched

21

0

21

Crime in progress

9

0

9

Terry stop

4

1

5

Follow-up investigation

2

0

2

Warrant service

2

0

2

Other

5

0

5

Total

43

1

44

Our review found officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate encounters with subjects against whom they eventually used force in 97.7% of the use of force incidents we sampled (43 of 44 incidents). The one incident lacking reasonable suspicion occurred when officers came upon an adult riding what they believed to be a child’s bicycle. The officers assumed the bicycle was stolen due to the size of the bicycle relative to the size of the rider. Suspecting the bicycle was stolen, the officers approached the subject, who then fled. Officers performed a takedown on the individual. The subject later complained of shoulder pain. The Department’s documentation failed to include adequate detail regarding the reasonable suspicion for the stop or the level of force used by the officer. The Monitoring Team brought this particular incident to the attention of the Compliance Bureau and FIT. As a result of the ongoing monitoring efforts, FIT has increased its coordination with District personnel to ensure their compliance with NOPD use of force policy and the requirements of the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 68 of 71
Page 68 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

10. Resistance Level by How the Encounter Was Initiated
Table 9 cross-tabulates how the encounter was initiated by the level of resistance presented by the subject.

Table H-9. Cross-tabulation of how the encounter was initiated and the level of resistance
Level of resistance

Compliant

Verbal

Braced, stiffened

Attempt to flee

Pulled away

Strikes

Weapon

Display firearm

Discharged firearm

Total

How the encounter was initiated

Dispatched

2

1

0

7

6

2

1

2

0

21

Crime in progress

1

1

1

3

0

1

0

2

0

9

Terry stop

0

0

0

3

1

1

0

0

0

5

Follow-up

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Warrant service

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Other

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

1

5

Total

6

2

2

16

7

4

1

5

1

44

Our review found officers were dispatched to 21 of the 44 incidents and came across a crime in progress in 9 of the 44 incidents that resulted in a use of force. Subjects were compliant with the officer in only 13.6% of encounters that resulted in a use of force (6 of 44 use of force incidents), and subjects fled in 36.3% of encounters that resulted in a use of force (16 of 44 use of force incidents). The “compliant” category consists of use of force incidents where an officer drew and pointed their firearm at the subject, and the subject then complied with the officer’s direction.
11. Instrumentality of Resistance by Instrumentality of Force
Officers use force in a variety of ways. The table below cross-tabulates the type of force used by the level of resistance offered by the subject.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 69 of 71
Page 69 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table H-10. Cross-tabulation of level of resistance by level of force

Instrumentality of force

Laser point

Point Comefirearm a-long

Forcible takedown

Hand/fist strike

CEW

Total

LEVEL OF RESISTANCE

Compliant

0

6

0

0

0

0

6

Verbal

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

Braced, stiffened

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

Attempted to flee

1

5

2

7

0

1

16

Pulled away

0

0

4

2

1

0

7

Strikes

0

0

1

1

1

1

4

Weapon

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Displayed firearm

0

5

0

0

0

0

5

Discharged firearm

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Total

1

18

9

10

2

4

44

As the table shows, 41% of uses of force involved the pointing of a firearm (18 of 44 use of force incidents). In 7 of these 18 incidents, the officer reported the subject of the force was either compliant (5 of 7) or passively resisting (2 of 7). In 6 of the 18 incidents, the subject of force attempted to flee. None of the force statements we reviewed, however, provided an explanation for pointing the weapon at a compliant, passively resisting, or fleeing subject. The officer may have had justification and reasonably felt threatened, but the force statement did not sufficiently indicate the reason(s) for the use of force. The Compliance Bureau was notified of these findings.
12. Conduct of The Investigation: Interviewing the Subject of Force
NOPD Policy and the Consent Decree requires Level 2 through 4 subjects of force to be interviewed. As reflected in table H-11 below, we found inconsistency in supervisory efforts to interview the subjects of force.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 70 of 71
Page 70 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table H-11. Subject interviews in use of force incidents N

Subject was interviewed

9

Subject was not interviewed

3

Subject refused interview

2

Subject was not available for interview

1

Unknown

1

Total

16

%
56.25% 18.75% 12.5% 6.25% 6.25%

Our audit found 56.25% of subjects were interviewed (9 of 16 subjects), while 25% either were not interviewed (3 of 16) or it was unknown whether they were interviewed (1 of 16). The Monitoring Team notified the Compliance bureau and PIB FIT of the 4 specific incidents where subjects were not interviewed. Current audit lacks consistent compliance with this supervisory requirement. The Monitoring Team and the Compliance Bureau plan to visit individual Districts in June to convey the results of this audit and to provide guidance on how to enhance supervision of these use of force investigations to ensure interviews are conducted.
13. Conduct of the Investigation: Investigative Findings
The investigating supervisor is required to review of the evidence gathered and make a determination as to whether the officer’s use of force was within NOPD policy and consistent with state and federal law. Also, the investigating supervisor is required to assess the incident for tactical and training implications, including whether the use of force may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser force options. The table below crosstabulates the conclusions reached by the supervising officer with the Monitoring Team’s independent review.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 517-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 71 of 71
Page 71 of 71 May 5, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table H-12. Cross-tabulation of NOPD findings by OCDM findings

NOPD findings Justified None Included
Total

Unreasonable 3 0
3

OCDM findings

Reasonable 33 4

Unable to determine 2 2

37

4

Total 38 6
44

As reflected above, in 86.4% of the uses of force (38 of 44), the investigating supervisor found the use of force justified. Of the 38 cases found to be justified by NOPD investigators, the Monitoring Team determined the use of force reasonable in 86.8% (33 of the 38 incidents). In 5.26% of those incidents (2 of 38), the investigative reports provided insufficient information for the Monitoring Team to reach a conclusion as to whether the force was reasonable. Furthermore, in 7.9% use of force incidents supervisors concluded were justified (3 of 38), the Monitoring Team disagreed with NOPD’s conclusion.

In 6 of the 44 investigations we reviewed, the NOPD supervisor failed to include a conclusion as to whether the force was justified or not. In 4 of these cases, the Monitoring Team was able to reach a conclusion and found the use of force to be reasonable. In the other 2 cases, there was insufficient information gathered by the investigating supervisor for the Monitoring Team to reach a conclusion.

Each case where NOPD and the Monitoring Team reached different conclusions on whether the force was justified or reasonable and where the NOPD supervisor failed to include a conclusion was referred to NOPD’s Compliance Bureau for further review. The Monitoring Team and the Compliance Bureau will meet in the coming months to discuss and resolve any differing conclusions.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 62
Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Covering the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016 Released June 19, 2017
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 62
Page 2 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Office of the Consent Decree
Monitor
June 19, 2017

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?
WHAT WE DID THIS PERIOD
• The Monitoring Team continued to review and approve policies, review Body Worn Camera videos, and evaluate uses of force. This period, we also spent significant time focusing on the Police Academy, including recruit and in-service training. We also conducting the second biennial Community Survey required by the Consent Decree. We surveyed the community, police officers, and detainees. In the area of Use of Force, we completed a comprehensive Use of Force analysis, completed a comparison of historic Use of Force data to more recent Use of Force data, and performed a multi-pronged evaluation of the integrity of NOPD’s Use of Force data.
WHAT WE FOUND
• The data reflect continued NOPD improvement in the area of uses of force.
• NOPD vastly improved its custodial interrogation, photographic lineup, and supervisory processes.
• NOPD needs to provide its supervisors with additional training on its new Early Warning System, called Insight, to realize the full benefits the system offers.
• While the Academy continues to make progress, the Monitoring Team continues to be concerned with the slow pace of full reform.
• As noted in a prior report, we identified significant problems in the Department’s recruit evaluation process, however, our more recent follow up audit showed dramatic improvement in this area.
NEXT PERIOD’S ACTIVITIES
• Continue to focus closely on all aspects of the Academy, including continuing to provide Technical Assistance on the development of lesson plans.
• Conduct a follow-up audit on the way NOPD’s PIB handles citizen complaints.
• Continue the ongoing follow-up BWC audit focusing on ensuring patrol officers are performing their duties in a professional, respectful, bias-free, and compliant manner.
• Continue reviewing all significant uses of force. • Continue the Team’s ongoing review of Stop, Search, and Arrest data. • Perform multiple other audits and reviews, and provide technical
assistance, as necessary.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 3 of 62 Page 3 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “The Monitor shall file with the Court quarterly written, public reports covering the reporting period that shall include:
a) A description of the work conducted by the Monitoring Team during the reporting period; b) A listing of each [Consent Decree] requirement indicating which requirements have been: (1) incorporated into implemented policy; (2) the subject of sufficient training for all relevant NOPD officers and employees; (3) reviewed or audited by the Monitoring Team in determining whether they have been fully implemented in actual practice, including the date of the review or audit; and (4) found by the Monitoring Team to have been fully implemented in practice; c) The methodology and specific findings for each audit or review conducted, redacted as necessary for privacy concerns. An unredacted version shall be filed under seal with the Court and provided to the Parties. The underlying data for each audit or review shall not be publicly available but shall be retained by the Monitoring Team and provided to either or both Parties upon request; d) For any requirements that were reviewed or audited and found not to have been fully implemented in practice, the Monitor’s recommendations regarding necessary steps to achieve compliance; e) The methodology and specific findings for each outcome assessment conducted; and f) A projection of the work to be completed during the upcoming reporting period and any anticipated challenges or concerns related to implementation of the [Consent Decree].”
Consent Decree Paragraph 457
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 4 of 62 Page 4 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 5 of 62 Page 5 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority ..............................................................................................................................3 II. Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................4 III. Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................5 IV. Glossary of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................8 V. Introduction to Quarterly Report ............................................................................................................10 VI. Summary of Monitoring Activities...........................................................................................................13 VII. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY ............................................................................................19 VIII. USE OF FORCE ...............................................................................................................................................21 IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM...................................................................................................................22 X. Custodial Interrogations...............................................................................................................................23
A. Paragraph 163...............................................................................................................................................23 B. Paragraph 164...............................................................................................................................................23 C. Paragraph 165...............................................................................................................................................24 D. Paragraph 166...............................................................................................................................................25 E. Paragraph 167...............................................................................................................................................25 F. Paragraph 168...............................................................................................................................................26 XI. Detective Selection..........................................................................................................................................27 A. Paragraph 169...............................................................................................................................................27 B. Paragraph 170...............................................................................................................................................27 XII. Photographic line-ups................................................................................................................................29 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 29 B. District-By-District Summary ................................................................................................................ 29
1. Paragraph 171......................................................................................................................................29 2. Paragraph 172......................................................................................................................................29 3. Paragraph 173......................................................................................................................................30 4. Paragraph 174......................................................................................................................................31 5. Paragraph 175......................................................................................................................................31 6. Paragraph 176......................................................................................................................................32
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 6 of 62 Page 6 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. Note Regarding Single Photo “Line-ups” .......................................................................................... 32 XIII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS.......................................................................................................33 XIV. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & Community Policing.................................................................34
A. Community Policing Introduction/Overview ................................................................................ 34 B. Community Policing – Current Progress .......................................................................................... 38 XV. Biennial Community Survey ...................................................................................................................41 XVI. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING............................................................................................42 XVII. SUPERVISION ............................................................................................................................................43 A. Supervision Generally................................................................................................................................ 43 B. Supervisory Duties and Related Items .............................................................................................. 43
1. Paragraph 306......................................................................................................................................43 2. Paragraph 307......................................................................................................................................45 3. Paragraph 308......................................................................................................................................45 4. Paragraph 309......................................................................................................................................46 5. Paragraph 310......................................................................................................................................46 6. Paragraph 311......................................................................................................................................46 7. Paragraph 312......................................................................................................................................46 8. Paragraph 313......................................................................................................................................47 9. Paragraph 314......................................................................................................................................47 10. Paragraph 315......................................................................................................................................48 C. The Insight Early Warning System ...................................................................................................... 48 1. EWS Status Overview........................................................................................................................49 2. EWS Specific Findings.......................................................................................................................49 2. Insight EWS Summary: Areas For Further Improvement ..............................................55 D. Supervision: Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities ................................... 57 1. Paragraph 327......................................................................................................................................57 2. Paragraph 328......................................................................................................................................58 3. Paragraph 329......................................................................................................................................58 4. Paragraph 330......................................................................................................................................59 5. Paragraph 331......................................................................................................................................59 XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.....................................................60
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 7 of 62 Page 7 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459).......................................................................................................... 60 B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467) ............................................................. 60 C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476) .................................................................................. 60 XIX. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................62
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 8 of 62
Page 8 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MAX” “MMPT” “MOU”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Management Analysis for Xcellence Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 9 of 62
Page 9 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 10 of 62 Page 10 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. INTRODUCTION TO QUARTERLY REPORT
As the Monitoring Team reported at the February public court hearing, NOPD continues to make significant progress in most every area of the Consent Decree. While the Department experienced a recent set-back in one area (recruit vetting), which was the subject of a Special Report issued by the Monitoring Team on January 18, 2017, other areas continue to move forward with notable results. Among NOPD’s accomplishments to date are the following:
• Establishment of an effective Use of Force Review Board.
• Creation of 66 new policies incorporating national best practices.
• Development of a Crisis Intervention Team program, including the training of all NOPD officers and supervisors and the special training of 144 certified CIT officers.
• Establishment of a functioning Officer Assistance and Support program.
• Establishment of a specially trained Force Investigations Team within the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau.
• A wholesale restructuring of the way the Department investigates crimes against women and a remarkable turnaround of the Departments Special Victim’s Section.
• Development of a first-in-the-nation department-wide peer intervention program called Ethical Policing Is Courageous (“EPIC”).
• Development of an effective Office of Police Secondary Employment (“OPSE”) to ensure officer details are handled fairly and effectively.
• Significant improvement within the NOPD Police Academy.
• Significant improvement in the way the Department handles Custodial Interrogations and Photographic Lineups.
• Creation of a new supervisory tool called MAX (for Management Analytics for Excellence), which makes a sizable volume of data available to police managers as well as to the public.
• Creation of an excellent officer-involved collision reporting system and database.
• Creation of an excellent police vehicle pursuit reporting system and database.
• Creation of an excellent ECW (Taser®) reporting and data collection system.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 11 of 62
Page 11 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Creation of multiple new public datasets that make sizable volumes of data (including calls for service data and use of force data) available to the public.
Notwithstanding these notable accomplishments – and they are notable – other areas continue to require additional NOPD attention. For example, while the Monitoring Team has recognized a significant improvement in the professionalism and efficiency of the Academy, too often Academy instructors still are teaching without approved lesson plans and/or without approved course materials. Similarly, while the Monitoring Team has seen significant progress made in the development of a meaningful Community Engagement/Community Policing program, the Department still has a long way to go before it can be rolled out effectively. And, as noted in prior reports, while the Department has made progress promoting the supervision of its officers, such supervision still is not at the “close and effective” level contemplated by the Consent Decree. Also, as noted in the Monitoring Team’s recent Special Report, the Department needs to reform the process through which it evaluates and selects new recruits.
Another area that requires significant additional attention by the Department is the implementation and use of Insight, its new Early Warning System. Insight, once fully rolled out, will provide the Department with a critical management and supervision tool by aggregating a huge amount of data so managers can identify patterns and trends that otherwise may remain invisible. For example, Insight will aggregate data from a number of the Department’s current systems, including Electronic Police Reports (EPRs), Field Interview Cards (FIC), data from the Department existing discipline database (IAPro), CAD, payroll data (ADP), OPDA, training data (Power DMS), and more. These data will be used to identify risk areas, including officers in need of extra attention. The Monitoring Team has been observing the Department’s implementation of Insight and has found the Department’s current Insight training insufficient. (We also have noted the absence of some important information within the Insight system, but we acknowledge NOPD is working to remedy those gaps.) NOPD’s current training focuses more on how to use the Insight software, not how to use the Insight data. This is an important distinction. It is one thing to know how to turn on the system, but quite another to know how to access and how to use the critical data in the system. Our conversations with supervisors demonstrate few supervisors have a working knowledge of how to take full advantage of the benefits Insight has to offer.
While these are important issues that must be remedied, no one should mistake the need for further improvement in some areas with a lack of progress in other areas. As noted above, NOPD has made significant improvement in almost every areas of the Consent Decree, and it deserves credit for doing so. Such credit should be given not only to the Department’s current management team, led by Superintendent Harrison, but to the hundreds of officers who have embraced reform and are working day in and day out to transform NOPD into a world-class department.
With the implementation of NOPD’s strong structural reforms, of course, the Department now must focus its attention on whether those reforms are manifesting themselves in more effective, less biased, and more respectful policing on the streets. A strong Stop & Search policy, for
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 12 of 62 Page 12 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
example, is only effective if officers adhere to it. Better Use of Force training is only effective if officers learn from it. And expanded supervisory tools are only meaningful if supervisors use them. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team is now expanding our monitoring activities to give more focus to “outcome assessments.” Paragraph 448 of the Consent Decree specifically requires the Monitoring Team to “conduct assessments to measure whether implementation of this Agreement is resulting in constitutional policing.” While the Monitoring Team has been working closely with the NOPD Compliance Bureau to conduct such assessments for several years now, the results of those assessments now are more important than ever. Finally, an important word should be said here about the occasional set-backs NOPD experiences during its march toward full Consent Decree compliance. Notwithstanding the Department’s significant progress, the Monitoring Team still sees officers occasionally making mistakes and/or engaging in wrongdoing. The recent arrest of an Academy recruit for domestic abuse provides just one such example, but others exist. NOPD observers and members of the community must keep in mind, however, that no police department is perfect – just like no member of the community is perfect. And while the Monitoring Team believes in holding the NOPD and its officers to a very high standard, we do not believe any police department should be held to an impossibly high standard of perfection. Police officers are human and are bound to make mistakes, and police departments are bound to have bad apples among their officers. What we all should expect, however, is that when mistakes are made they are openly identified, honestly evaluated, and meaningful remedied. And when bad apples are discovered, they are dealt with fairly, seriously, and swiftly. We offer this distinction between a flawed department and flawed individuals because it is an important one. Just as we cannot let the Department’s progress blind us to areas in need of further reform, we likewise cannot let the mistakes or misconduct of some blind ourselves to the progress the Department has made in so many areas.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 13 of 62 Page 13 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Monitoring Team spent significant time during the period covered by this Quarterly Report reviewing, auditing, and evaluating multiple areas of Consent Decree compliance. Among other things, the Monitoring Team:
• Reviewed and analyzed extensive Use of Force data and published Special Report focusing on Use of Force in May 2017.
• Conducted targeted audits to ensure NOPD officers are consistently reporting Uses of Force.
• At the direction of the Court, provided significant, hands-on technical assistance to the NOPD Academy, including supporting the development of curricula, lesson plans, and presentation materials.
• Observed multiple recruit and in-service training courses.
• Conducted multiple district-by-district audits of NOPD’s compliance with its obligations relating to Photographic Line-ups, Custodial Interrogations, Detective Selection, Audio/Video Recordings, and Supervision.
• Developed, planned, and conducted a follow-up, in-person Community Survey that covered police officers, detainees, and community members. (The community survey involved house-to-house surveys of community members throughout New Orleans.)
• Conducted regular audits of NOPD’s Special Victims Section, focusing on, among other things, NOPD’s compliance with its obligations relating to sexual assault and domestic violence investigations.
• Reviewed extensive Body Worn Camera video recordings to evaluate camera usage and the conduct of the officers recorded.
• Separately reviewed BWC video recordings to evaluate NOPD compliance with its Bias-Free Policing obligations, including the way the Department handles stops, searches, and arrests.
• Oversaw the development of the Department’s Early Warning System, called Insight.
• Provided Technical Assistance to NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau’s Force Investigation Team and administrative investigations section.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 14 of 62
Page 14 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Conducted a targeted audit of NOPD’s recruit selection practices, which led to a special report published earlier this year.
• Oversaw the development of a new NOPD Community Policing/Community Engagement initiative, and provided Technical Assistance to help facilitate the prompt implementation of the new program.
• Provided pro bono technical assistance to the development and implementation of the Department’s “EPIC” peer intervention program.
In addition to the foregoing, the Monitoring Team also spent significant time this period, as it always does, meeting with and listening to civilians, community leaders, and officers regarding the police department, the Consent Decree, and police reform generally. While we cannot recount all the questions, suggestions, and concerns we have fielded over these months, the following questions are illustrative.
Question/Comment. What is the Monitoring Team doing about the apparent rise in crime in New Orleans?
Monitoring Team Response.
The Monitoring Team’s role is strictly constrained by the Consent Decree. Our job is to serve as the eyes and ears of the U.S. District Court (and the public), and report to the public regarding NOPD’s compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree. While we are permitted to provide Technical Assistance to the NOPD when requested to do so, and we have done so many times, the Consent Decree explicitly states our job is not to take the place of the NOPD. Thus, the Monitoring Team leaves fighting crime to the police department. Our job simply is to ensure the Department does so constitutionally.
That being said, the Monitoring Team has identified several actions we can take within our authority that could help NOPD do its job more efficiently. For example, the Monitoring Team provides Technical Assistance in a number of areas to help NOPD become a more effective Department. We pushed for and participated in an internal “Burden Reduction Working Group,” designed to identify ways to provide officers more time to focus on their core policing function (i.e., answering calls for service, engaging with the community, fighting crime, etc.). The Working Group identified a number of actions, which NOPD is implementing, that will have the effect of putting more officers on the streets. More recently, at the request of NOPD, the Monitoring Team has engaged with a new internal working group to identify additional opportunities for efficiencies. While the Monitoring Team has only limited authority, by working closely with NOPD, DOJ, the community, and the Court, we have helped NOPD identify a number of innovative ways it can better meet the needs of the community.
Finally, it is worth noting here that while there are multiple factors that contribute to crime rates in any given city (e.g., unemployment, wages, education, despair, the availability of
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 15 of 62
Page 15 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

social services, the efficiency of the local court system, the availability of beds for those in need of mental health services, etc.), the principles embraced by the Consent Decree are not among them. The Consent Decree calls for clear and understandable policies; practical and memorable training; close and effective supervision; respectful and unbiased policing; and fair, effective, and unbiased discipline. None of these principles contributes to crime.1
Question/Comment. Will the change in leadership within the U.S. Department of Justice reduce the Monitoring Team’s focus on NOPD?
Monitoring Team Response. No. First, the Monitoring Team reports to U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan, not to the Department of Justice. The change in DOJ leadership has no impact on the job of the Monitoring Team. Second, the Consent Decree is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, not the DOJ. Judge Morgan has made clear she is fully committed to ensuring the reforms set forth in the Consent Decree are fully implemented. Third, notwithstanding the change in DOJ leadership, the Monitoring Team has not seen any reduced interest or attention to the Consent Decree by the DOJ team assigned to this matter. As far as we can tell, the Department of Justice remains fully committed to the process of police reform in New Orleans.
Question/Comment. Is there “de-policing” in New Orleans?
Monitoring Team Response. There has been a lot of speculation across the country the past few years about whether the extensive media coverage of recent police use of force incidents in Ferguson, Baltimore, and other cities has caused police officers to be less proactive in performing their duties. Often called the “Ferguson effect,” the concern expressed by some is that officers “are conscious of the negative publicity surrounding their profession, understand that their actions could be recorded by the public at any given time, and become less willing to do their job as a way to avoid being accused of racial profiling or excessive force.”2 The result, some argue, is “de-policing.”
Experts disagree on the actual existence of the Ferguson effect and, if it exists at all, its actual impact on policing. This disagreement, however, does not stop many from pointing to depolicing as a significant contributor to crime in many major cities, usually without any evidence to support the connection. While the existence of and potential causes of de-policing will continue to be studied by experts, suffice it to say the Monitoring Team acknowledges there

1

It is interesting to note that the overall crime rate in the country’s 30 largest cities stayed relatively steady

from 2015 to 2016, rising by just 0.3%. See Brennan Center’s Crime in 2016: Updated Analysis. The

violent crime rate, however, has significantly increased in several of the country’s major cities. From 2015

to 2016, for example, the violent crime rates rose by 17.7% in Chicago, 10.6% in Los Angeles, 23.5% in

San Antonio, 13.4% in Charlotte, 10.6% in Baltimore, 11.8% in San Jose, and 11.1% in Dallas. None of

these Cities were under a Consent Decree in 2015 or 2016.

2

See Wolfe, Scott, The Alleged “Ferguson Effect” and Police Willingness to Engage in Community

Partnership, LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, Vol. 40 (2016).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 16 of 62
Page 16 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
exists at least a perception of de-policing among many in the United States, including among some in New Orleans.
At a recent meeting of several New Orleans business leaders, for example, the question was asked of the Monitoring Team whether NOPD may be experiencing de-policing as a result of the “Ferguson effect.” A second questioner asked whether the Consent Decree might be contributing to de-policing. While the Monitoring Team has heard anecdotes of de-policing in New Orleans over the past few years, we have not seen credible data evidencing actual depolicing. Nonetheless, the Monitoring Team is in the process of looking at additional data to evaluate whether NOPD officers are, in fact, being less proactive than they should be. With respect to the cause of any such diminution in proactivity, however, we are confident in saying the Consent Decree is not it. The Consent Decree, drafted collectively by the City, the NOPD, and the U.S. Department of Justice, promotes constitutional policing by calling for clear policies that give officers meaningful guidance; well-trained officers who have respect for all members of the community; robust training that incorporates procedural justice, respect for all members of the community, and constitutional standards; committed and competent supervisors; thorough and competent investigations into police use of force and allegations of misconduct; and strong partnerships with the community. All of these tools lie at the core of the Consent Decree, and none should give any thoughtful police officer pause about performing his/her duties.
The Monitoring Team speaks regularly with NOPD officers about policing in general, policing in New Orleans, and the Consent Decree. One officer’s description of the Consent Decree is worth sharing here because it reflects what we hear from many officers: “If you do your job, the Consent Decree won’t bother you. It just puts on paper what we all should be doing anyway. Plus it actually helped us fix some things that needed to be fixed.” We think that is a fair and insightful understanding.
Question/Comment. Does the Monitoring Team meet directly with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to make victim-focused recommendations to the NOPD?
Monitoring Team Response. The Monitoring Team meets regularly with victims’ advocate groups, including members of the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team, the New Orleans Family Justice Center, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, and other groups. The Monitoring Team also has met with individual victims in the past. Following this question from an attendee at our most recent Quarterly Public Meeting, the Monitoring Team reached out to Family Justice Center Executive Director Mary Claire Landry and SART Chairperson Amanda Tonkovich to discuss the possibility of receiving more insight and feedback from victims. As a result of these conversations, the Family Justice Center now will make it a practice to advise victims they can contact the Monitoring Team (as well as the PIB and the IPM) directly should they have any concerns regarding the way NOPD handles their cases. Further, the Monitoring Team reached out to NOPD Commander Doug Eckard who is responsible for the Department’s Special Victims Section to ensure NOPD brings victim complaints to the attention of the Monitoring Team in a timely fashion.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 17 of 62
Page 17 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Question/Comment. Why can NOPD officers no longer engage in high speed car chases?
Monitoring Team Response. Thanks to Hollywood, many people have come to associate high speed car chases with “real policing.” But Hollywood rarely shows the way high speed chases typically start and end in real life. Contrary to Hollywood’s depiction, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for nothing more than a traffic violation and all too often end with innocent civilians and/or the officers seriously injured or killed. In fact, according to experts, one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit; and, on average, from 1994 through 1998, “one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit. . . .” Further, “1 out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.”3
In light of these statistics, enlightened departments years ago began instituting more commonsense vehicle pursuit policies. NOPD implemented a new vehicle pursuit policy in December 2015.4 Among other things, NOPD’s policy permits vehicle pursuits only where the officer has “a reasonable suspicion that a fleeing suspect has committed or has attempted to commit a crime of violence . . . and the escape of the subject would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.”5 The policy further requires that officers receive “supervisory approval prior to initiating the pursuit.” The policy expressly prohibits pursuits “for property offenses, misdemeanor offenses, traffic, or civil infractions.”
NOPD’s vehicle pursuit policy has been approved by the U.S. Department of Justice and by the Monitoring Team, and reflects a best practice among reform-minded departments. It was designed to protect civilian and officer lives while affording the police department the flexibility it needs to engage in a pursuit where necessary. Studies have shown that a restrictive vehicle pursuit policy like that employed by NOPD does not hinder a police department’s ability to fight crime. Further, NOPD’s policy could generate additional advantages as well. At least some experts, for example, contend that the adrenaline rush of a high speed pursuits increases the likelihood that excessive force will be used at the end of the pursuit.6
In short, while we recognize some citizens and officers will not be convinced by the data and will remain of the view that “real police” should be free to engage in high speed vehicle pursuits, NOPD should be commended for its development and implementation of a sensible, safe, and effective vehicle pursuit policy.
* * *

3

Schultz, David, Hudak, Ed, and Alpert, Geoff, Evidence-Based Decisions on Police Pursuits, FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin (2010).

4

See http://nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-41-5-Vehicle-Pursuits.pdf/.

5

NOPD Policy 41.5.

6

See, e.g., Becknell, Conon et al., “Policy Restrictiveness and Police Pursuits,” International Journal of

Police Strategies and Management , Vol. 22, No. 1 (1999) (citing Alpert, Geoff, et al.).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 18 of 62 Page 18 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com As we have done since our appointment, the Monitoring Team also spent significant time meeting with, and listening to, the parties to the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team is in regular contact with the City, the NOPD, and the DOJ. We also continue to meet regularly with the NOPD Compliance Bureau, the PIB, the NOLA OIG, and the members of the Independent Police Monitor’s team, as well as community advocacy groups like SART and the New Orleans Family Justice Center.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 19 of 62
Page 19 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VII. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY
The process implemented by the NOPD, the DOJ, and the Monitoring Team in 2014 to facilitate the review, revision, and approval of Department policies continues to be effective. NOPD completed numerous additional policies these past two quarters, which supplement a large number of policies previously approved by DOJ and the Monitoring Team. To date, the following policies have been approved:

• Search and Seizure (Custody Searches rolled into this policy)
• Terry Stops • Search Warrant Content, Forms and
Reviews • Public Video Recording and
Photographing Police Activity • Use of Force • Handcuffing and Restraints • Control Devices and Techniques • Force Investigative Team (FIT) • Reporting Use of Force • Use of Force Review Boards • Firearms • Authorized Ammunition • Firearms Training Qualification and
Requalification • Conducted Electrical Weapon • Arrests/Arrest Warrants/Wanted
Persons • Miranda Rights • Audits and Reviews • Audit and Review Unit Standard
Operating Guidelines • Commendations and Awards • Secondary Employment • Mediation Settlement • Adjudication of Misconduct • Disciplinary Matrix/Penalty
Schedule • Promotions and Promotion
Committee • Employee Counseling

• Insight • Early Intervention Unit • Rule 5-Restricted Activities • BWC Inadvertent Misuse and Non-
use • In-Car Camera • Body-Worn Camera • Foot Pursuits • Vehicle Pursuits • Immigration Status • Bias-Free Policing • Canines • Crisis Intervention • Crisis Transportation Service • Interacting with Homeless persons • Sexual Assault (and Sex Crimes
Operating Guidelines) • Domestic Violence • Custodial Interrogations • Disciplinary Hearings/Penalties • Misconduct Compliant Investigator
Responsibilities • Negotiated Settlement • Victim and Witness Assistance • Prisoner Transportation • Hate Crimes

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 20 of 62 Page 20 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com The Monitoring Team and the U.S. Department of Justice expect to approve additional policies over the coming months.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 21 of 62 Page 21 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VIII. USE OF FORCE
Since the outset of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team consistently has reviewed all serious uses of force by NOPD officers. Additionally, the Monitoring Team regularly conducts broader Use of Force audits to ensure uses of force are being accurately reported, meaningfully reviewed by supervisors, and, where necessary, fully evaluated by NOPD PIB. On May 5, 2017, the Monitoring Team published a Special Report focusing on NOPD Use of Force. The Report included the following analyses:
• A comparative analysis of uses of force from 2012 through November 2016. The Monitoring Team analyzed a sizable amount of data. The trends that emerge from those data are important in evaluating NOPD’s progress under the Consent Decree.
• Multiple analyses aimed at assessing the integrity of NOPD’s use of force data. These analyses are important to determine whether NOPD’s use of force data are reliable. Obviously, a data analysis is only as good as the integrity of the underlying data. Our analyses in this area give us strong comfort that NOPD’s current and recent use of force data are reliable.
• A preliminary analysis of 2016 uses of force. Because our most recent comprehensive Use of Force audit was conducted over the course of the last two quarters of 2016 and used data from 2015, the Monitoring Team supplemented that Use of Force audit with more current data from 2016.
• A discussion of specific 2016 uses of force. The Monitoring Team reviewed all serious uses of force by the NOPD. Our prior report described several illustrative uses of force analyzed by the Monitoring Team.
• A comprehensive historic analysis of 2015 uses of force. This analysis covered all material elements of uses of force, including NOPD’s investigation into those uses of force.
The Special Report is available at www.consentdecreemonitor.com.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 22 of 62 Page 22 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM Section IV of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.” To achieve this outcome, NOPD agreed to create a properly trained Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”). The NOPD began actively developing its CIT program (including a policy, an Academy curriculum, a training program, and training materials) in August 2015. The first class of 24 officers graduated on September 18, 2015. By May 2016, the NOPD had trained its third class of CIT officers, bringing the total number of trained CIT officers to sixty-nine. NOPD’s most recent graduating class, the fourth, brought another 30 officers into the CIT program on September 6, 2016. According to NOPD’s records, as of the end of February 2017, the Department had provided basic training to all new officers and specialty training to 144 officers. In addition to these 144 CIT officers, the Department has provided special training to six social workers, two crisis transportation service volunteers, and one reserve officer. The Monitoring Team has seen CIT officers in action and has spoken to numerous officers and community members regarding the CIT program. The results, so far, have been positive. NOPD officers and community members uniformly praise the CIT program. The Monitoring Team, however, must reserve final judgment on the effectiveness of the program until an in-depth outcome assessment/analysis is conducted.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 23 of 62
Page 23 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

X. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
The Monitoring Team conducted a periodic Custodial Interrogation audit of Districts 3, 6, and SVS during the week of January 3, 2017 and of Districts 4, 5, 7, and SOD during the week of January 30, 2017. In general, the districts showed great improvement over prior audits. A summary of our findings follows.
A. Paragraph 163
Paragraph 163 provides that “[o]fficers shall not use physical violence or make threats to carry out harm to the individual or the individual’s family during custodial interrogations.” The Monitoring Team reviewed 36 of 63 recordings. Those reviewed did not contain any indication of physical violence or threat of physical violence.

District District District District District

3

4

5

6

7

SVS

SOD

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

B. Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164 provides that “all custodial interrogations that take place in a police facility, and all interrogations that involve suspected homicides or sexual assaults, shall be video and audio recorded.” The paragraph goes on to provide as follows: “[a]ll recorded custodial interrogations will be recorded in their entirety. NOPD rejects the concept of a pre-interview and prohibits any decision not to record any portion of the interrogation based on such categorization. The recording equipment shall not be turned off unless the suspect states that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded. If the suspect requests that he/she does not want the interview to be recorded, the interviewer will record the subject making this request and shall document this request in the case report.” NOPD demonstrated full compliance in the districts we audited this period.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 24 of 62
Page 24 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

District District District District District

3

4

5

6

7

SVS

SOD

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

C. Paragraph 165
Paragraph 165 provides that, “[i]f the interrogation is not able to be video and audio recorded because of equipment failure or malfunction, detectives shall record the interrogation by means of a digital or cassette recorder. Any equipment failure shall be explained and documented in the case report, the case file, and in a memo to the Deputy Chief of the Investigation & Support Bureau.” NOPD demonstrated full compliance in the districts we audited this period.

District District District District District

3

4

5

6

7

SVS

SOD

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 25 of 62
Page 25 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

D. Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166 of the Consent Decree requires officer to “maintain in the case file their notes taken during interviews and interrogations.” As reflected below, NOPD demonstrated full compliance with this paragraph during this audit period.

District District District District District

3

4

5

6

7

SVS

SOD

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

E. Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167 provides that “NOPD shall designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units, and ensure that interview rooms are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations.” Here again, NOPD demonstrated full compliance with these requirements during this audit period.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 26 of 62
Page 26 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

District District District District District

3

4

5

6

7

SVS

SOD

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

F. Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168 provides that “NOPD shall use qualified interpreters for any interrogation of an LEP individual, and Miranda warnings shall be provided to the subject in his or her primary language.” Paragraph 168 further provides as follows: “[b]ecause of the dual role bilingual NOPD employees may have when conducting an interrogation and simultaneously acting as an interpreter, they should only be used as an interpreter during an interrogation if they have identified themselves as officers or employees of the Department, are authorized as NOPD interpreters, and are trained in using interpretation protocols consistent with best practices, as required by this Agreement and NOPD’s language assistance policy and plan.” NOPD was unable to demonstrate full compliance with paragraph 168 this period. While NOPD has provided the names of authorized interpreters, the Department has yet to provide evidence of the interpreters being trained in interpretation protocols.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Unknown Compliant

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 27 of 62 Page 27 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. DETECTIVE SELECTION The Monitoring Team audited Districts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, SVS, and SOD this period to evaluate NOPD’s compliance with the Detective Selection elements of the Consent Decree. NOPD showed marked improvement over prior audits. The following sections summarize our findings.
A. Paragraph 169 Paragraph 169 of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “post all detective openings throughout the Department and shall revise eligibility criteria for detectives in Districts and specialized units to require appropriate experience, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview.” NOPD is nearly in full compliance with these requirements.
D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SOD SVS
Two SOD detectives were assigned within the past six months, but SOD was unable to produce documentation of the KSA process for the selection of these detectives. Likewise, SOD was unable to produce KSA documentation for three detectives assigned to the Department’s Traffic division.
B. Paragraph 170 Paragraph 170 requires NOPD to “develop and deliver at least 24 hours of formal training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods.” The paragraph goes on to provide that the detective training “shall include legal standards, ethics, the mechanics of conducting effective and constitutional investigations, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions[; and that] NOPD shall provide regular, and at least annual, in-service training to all detectives on updates and changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions.” NOPD could not demonstrate full compliance with these requirements this audit period.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 28 of 62
Page 28 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 SOD SVS

Initial Training: Partial
Training Updates: Partial

Initial Training:
COMP

Initial Training:
COMP

Training Updates: Partial

Training Updates: Partial

Initial Training:
COMP
Training Updates: Partial

Initial Training:
COMP
Training Updates: Partial

Initial Training:
UNK
Training Updates:
UNK

Initial Training:
COMP
Training Updates: Partial

While NOPD developed and uses a lesson plan for new detective training, its lesson plan for inservice refresher training still is in development. Further, the Monitoring Team continues to come across detectives who have not yet been afforded the opportunity to attend new detective training and/or refresher training. An updated in-service training program focusing on changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions is in the works, but has not been fully developed.
While the Seventh District, like the other districts we audited, still has not achieved full compliance with paragraph 170, the Monitoring Team would be remiss not to recognize the impressive system developed by the Seventh District to track detective training. Other Districts would be wise to emulate the Seventh in this regard.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 29 of 62 Page 29 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS The Monitoring Team audited NOPD Districts in January and early February 2017 to assess compliance with the Consent Decree requirements regarding Photographic Line-ups. We audited Districts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, SVS, and SOD. A summary of our findings follows.
A. Introduction NOPD agreed “to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information.” NOPD continues to make strong progress in achieving full Consent Decree compliance in this area.
B. District-By-District Summary 1. Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171 provides that “[n]o officer who is involved in the investigation shall participate in administering the photographic lineup.” Paragraph 171 provides further that “[t]he individual who administers the lineup shall not have any knowledge as to which photograph depicts the suspect in the investigation.” NOPD demonstrated full compliance with these requirements in the districts we audited this period.
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
2. Paragraph 172 Paragraph 172 requires that, “before any lineup is administered, eyewitnesses shall be admonished that the suspect might or might not be present in the lineup.” NOPD has made terrific progress in this area, and each district audited this period was able to demonstrate full compliance with the Consent Decree requirements.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 30 of 62 Page 30 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
3. Paragraph 173 Paragraph 173 provides that “NOPD agrees to select ‘filler’ photographs—those that do not depict the suspect—of individuals who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features.”
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
While NOPD continues to make progress in this area, some photo arrays continue to include individuals who do not fairly resemble the suspected perpetrator. In our review of photo lineups, we identified multiple line-ups that included individuals who did not adequately resemble the suspect. While we did not identify any intentional effort to use unlike filler photographs in order to guide a witness to a certain individual, photographs that are materially different nonetheless could have that unintended consequences. NOPD’s own training, conducted by DA investigator (and former Deputy Chief) Kirk Bouyelas, emphasizes the importance of using filler photographs that are as similar as possible, including facial features, facial hair, body markings, and even clothing.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Partially Compliant Compliant Partially Compliant Compliant Partially Compliant Partially Compliant
No n Compliant

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Partially Compliant

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 31 of 62 Page 31 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. Paragraph 174 Paragraph 174 provides that “NOPD agrees to keep a complete record of each display procedure and results. The record shall include the time, date, location, identity of the viewing person, photograph numbers, and name of the administrator of the line-up.”
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
The only reason SOD could not demonstrate full compliance with paragraph 174 was because SOD failed to list photographic numbers on the line-ups in three of the four line-ups we reviewed during this audit period.
5. Paragraph 175 Paragraph 175 provides that “NOPD agrees to document other information pertinent to the display procedure, including any statements made by the viewing individual and identities of other persons present during the procedure.”
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
The errors we identified during our SVS audit were relatively minor and easily remedied.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Substantially Compliant Compliant

Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 32 of 62 Page 32 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
6. Paragraph 176 Paragraph 176 provides that, “[i]f a suspect selection is made, NOPD agrees to mark and maintain as evidence the photographs used in the lineup, including a copy of the photo array if one was used. It shall be kept as evidence until the final disposition of the case, at which time it shall become a part of the permanent case file.
3D 4D 5D 6D 7D SVS SOD
Obviously, these results reflect an effective effort on the part of NOPD’s various districts to work toward full and sustained Consent Decree compliance.
C. Note Regarding Single Photo “Line-ups” Most NOPD Districts have opted to not enter single photo identifications on the photographic line-up record. The only District entering single photos in the line-ups is NOPD’s Sixth District, which we commend. The other districts contend such activities do not constitute “line-ups” since photos are shown only to victims or witnesses when they know the identity of the subject. The Monitoring Team, however, has seen instances where detectives presented a single photo when a line-up should have been provided. Without entering the single photo “line-ups” into the photographic line-up log, it makes it extremely difficult for supervisors (or the Monitoring Team) to locate cases of single photos being presented in the field.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 33 of 62
Page 33 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS
Section IX of the Consent Decree requires NOPD, among other things, to “to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
In February 2017, the Monitoring Team conducted an audit of Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse case files in the Special Victims Unit of the NOPD. The cases were selected randomly from case files assigned to investigators in October, November, and December 2016. In all cases the Monitoring Team found competent initial investigations and at least one supplement in the case files. In cases where interviews were conducted, investigators were empathetic and victim-centered while conducting victim and witness interviews. There were several cases where the Monitoring Team believed a second supplement was necessary. In those cases, the investigators actively were involved in the open cases and were prepared to initiate a second supplement detailing actions taken since the initial follow-up investigation.
These audit findings are reflective of the many improvements the SVU has made over the past two years. The consistency of detailed case files during our most recent audit indicates to the Monitoring Team that there is more steadfast oversight by SVU supervisors and a more systematic process by investigators to complete more in-depth investigations. The recent audit is consistent with the results reported in more detail by the Monitoring Team during the August 2016 Public Hearing.
The Monitoring Team continues, on a regular basis, also to review the Department’s patrol response to Domestic Violence incidents. Monitors review random samplings of Body Worn Camera footage and police incident reports of domestic violence cases in all eight Districts. The Monitoring Team follows up on cases reported to be Gone On Arrival (GOA) to determine whether there was a delay in the police response that may have contributed to the GOA clearance. In about 15 percent of the cases, the Monitoring Team directs the cognizant District supervisor to review the same cases as the Monitor to determine whether a re-direction, retraining or discipline is in order when it is determined that the incident was handled incorrectly or the responding officer could have done a better job with their response. The Monitoring Team finds vast improvements in the patrol response since we began reviewing these cases in 2014. We continue to expect further improvement with in-service training enhancements and the fact that the policy has now been in place for more than two years.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 34 of 62
Page 34 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNITY POLICING
A. Community Policing Introduction/Overview
As noted in our prior Quarterly Report, in January 2016, NOPD announced a major departmental restructuring which, among other things, did away with the positions of Community Affairs Coordinator and Quality of Life Office in an effort to put more patrol officers on the streets. According to NOPD, the restructuring will involve “becoming a community policing focused department.”
More recently, NOPD has expressed its community policing vision as follows:
Community policing will enhance the NOPD’s ability to fulfill our mission to provide professional police services to the public in order to maintain order and protect life and property. It is a longterm, aspirational goal to transform the organization to effectively engage the community in every interaction and collaborate with the community in efforts to problem-solve and build partnerships, as well as utilize procedural justice. Officers will foster positive community engagement interactions between citizens and NOPD, utilize community policing ideals, create opportunities for substantive engagement with the community, substantive collaboration with the community as well as civic engagement.
NOPD has made progress with its community policing initiative over the past two quarters, but still has a ways to go to fully realize its stated vision.
Traditionally, Community Policing has been defined as the philosophy that formulates how policing is conducted across a department. Community engagement, collaborative problem solving, and organizational change often are cited as the foundational supports of the philosophy. While Community Policing is a major feature of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team previously expressed some concern that the Department was focusing on community engagement at the expense of an across-the-board implementation of a true Community Policing model designed to change how the Department does business. Part of the Department’s confusion may have stemmed from how the Consent Decree itself embeds the Community Policing paragraphs within the overall Community Engagement Section of the Decree (see Section X; paras 223-233). Consequently, it seemed some within the Department felt (or at least acted as though) community engagement had to take precedence over Community Policing.
Superintendent Michael Harrison framed Community Policing most appropriately at a February Status Conference when he defined Community Policing as a “mindset” that must be adopted across the Department. He also spoke at a PERF Conference in March 2016 where he correctly
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 35 of 62
Page 35 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
defined cultural change as the “hardest challenge.” Despite challenges, it is apparent to the Monitoring Team through our various interviews and meetings that this mindset and culture shift are being reinforced appropriately through a variety of activities involving policy, training, practices, and transparency.
• POLICY
The Police Department’s Operations Manual (Chapter 10.0) defines Community Engagement as a fundamental policy, and defines how the policy formalizes the Community Engagement and Policing Program. However, a good example of departmental interest in making change includes proposed revisions to the Operations Manual, Chapter 10.0, which are currently under review and which include revising the Manual Chapter Heading to read Community Policing and Community Engagement. The proposed revisions go beyond revising the order of the words in the title, though. The current text refers to community engagement as a “Program” in contrast to a department-wide philosophy. The current text also describes community engagement as any “non-enforcement practice” that promotes and strengthens partnerships with the community through active engagement. NOPD worked with the Monitoring Team to expand this somewhat narrow practice definition by adding other activities including those that “promote and strengthen community partnerships, engage constructively with the community, ensure collaborative problem solving, ensure ethical and bias free policing, and increase the demand for increasing community confidence in the Department.”
The Manual then defined Community Policing as
a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder and fear of crime.
The forthcoming revisions will better capture the philosophy of Community Policing and all it entails, including community engagement, and will present a less confusing picture of how Department strategies will reflect Community Policing across the city. Further, the NOPD Mission Statement now references the Department’s commitment to the philosophy of Community Oriented Policing and Problem Oriented Policing. All suggest major changes are in play and indicate that the Department is prioritizing community policing at the policy level.
• TRAINING
Another change that is consistent with the policy move from community engagement to Community Policing involves the Academy; particularly the recent introduction of a new eighthour course on Relationship-Based Policing. This training, which uses a scenario-based adult
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 36 of 62
Page 36 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
learning model, has been integrated into both Recruit and In-Service Training. The course focuses on building trust and public confidence while sustaining crime fighting partnerships with the community, and it works on developing skills to engage in collaborative problem solving partnerships.
Further, there are a number of other Academy courses related to Community Policing, including Fair and Impartial Policing, Tactical De-escalation, and Attaining Respect, to name just a few. There also is a separate course called Consent Decree Introduction. In total, in addition to the Relationship-Based Policing course, Recruit classes will be trained in 17 other courses that are related to Community Policing, and In-Service participants will be trained in 4 other Community Policing courses. The introduction of these courses also is consistent with changes that have taken place at the Academy and which have introduced a professional development model into police training.
• PRACTICES
Central to the Policy and Training initiatives are the community groups in each district that have been working with the District Commanders and the officers to create stronger problem solving relationships. Currently, they are preparing to work hand-in-hand with the police in each district to identify and solve specific problems identified by the particular community as critical to be solved in ways that go beyond simply arresting perpetrators. These plans are referred to as each District’s Community Outreach and Public Information Plan and they are different for each District. The plans are complex, establish priorities that are supported by concerns prioritized by community members, and develop actionable items that are concrete steps that the District will take to implement the Community Outreach and Public Information Plan. As such, they include transparent steps that will be updated monthly. All Districts are preparing to roll out their Community Outreach Public Information Plans, which include Community Engagement Night Outs that will provide forums where community members will be encouraged to prioritize their public safety concerns.
In a separate community initiative, the Department will conduct a series of community focus groups that will be held across the city. This initiative has been identified as the Department’s PROMISE Program and was scheduled to begin in April. Aside from problems specific to each District, these groups will focus more on procedural justice issues across the city and facilitators will seek input from participants as to what the Department needs to do to ensure procedurally just and respectful policing. These priorities will be reassessed every 3 to 6 months and the police will work with the community to see if priorities should be reassessed or new ones addressed.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 37 of 62
Page 37 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• TRANSPARENCY
Beyond what is built into the Consent Decree in terms of evaluation, required community surveys, data collection, and public reporting supported by the Compliance Bureau, the Community Plans are another measure of heightened transparency as are the model policies of the Department. Further, the different community meetings provide an opportunity for transparency in terms of open discussion, information exchange, and problem solving.
* * *
In Summary, at least some of the Department’s initial confusion may have stemmed from the Consent Decree’s focus on community engagement versus Community Policing. It probably is worth keeping in mind that, at the time that the Consent Decree was formulated by DOJ, many events had occurred across the country that had diverted attention from Community Policing, such as events of September 11, the use of metrics or “policing by the numbers”, and the development of predictive policing models. In any event, Department’s recent efforts are properly Community Policing-focused.
The Department’s recent (and ongoing) efforts also are consistent with the findings of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which was formed in response to events across the country that have exposed serious rifts in trust between police and the communities they serve. The Task Force organized their recommendations around Six Main “Pillars” with Pillar Four identified as Community Policing and Crime Reduction. This Pillar presents Community Policing as a
philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social reflected disorder, and fear of crime.
See Task Force Report at 41. This definition is consistent with that provided by the COPS Office (www.cops.usdoj.gov), and also seems to be consistent with the proposed Community Outreach and Public Information Plans developed at each NOPD district.
Given the documented changes seen in Policy, Training, Practices, and Transparency throughout the Department, particularly those involving active collaboration with the community to identify and solve problems across all Divisions, the Monitoring Team believes the change in Mindset discussed by Superintendent Harrison is (albeit slowly) gaining momentum across the Department. While the Department may not yet be at the top of the list of “community policing departments,” they have come a long way and seem to be continuing to move forward. The Compliance Bureau has collaborated with the Monitoring Team regarding changes and have
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 38 of 62
Page 38 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

worked closely to help Divisions reach their goals. Further, they are engaged in continual evaluation to assess progress and sustained change and, along with the guidance from Drs. Alpert and Burns, will be most helpful to ensuring that the change in mindset is not short lived, and that activities to sustain reforms continue to expand and become institutionalized.
As such, the confusion that surrounded much of the Department’s early Community Policing efforts is at least partly attributable to the Consent Decree’s emphasis and focus on Community Engagement. However, more recent activities demonstrate that Community Policing is the predominant philosophy driving the New Orleans Police Department. While the Department still has work to do to reach all Community Policing compliance goals, as described in greater detail below, they have made significant progress and show the capacity to continue to move in that direction.
B. Community Policing – Current Progress
To date, NOPD has developed an extensive community policing plan and is working to finalize a community policing policy that implements that plan. The plan outlines the principles of community policing, including problem solving, collaborative problem-solving, procedural justice, and youth engagement. NOPD has provided the Monitoring Team with the following illustrations of how it intends to implement these core community policing components:
• Problem-solving. Through the Department’s MAX7 process, supervisors already are being held accountable for how they problem-solve to address issues related to crime, investigations, and management. At each MAX meeting, the Deputy Superintendent of the Field Operations Bureau is briefed on previous problems identified and strategies utilized to address the problems to ensure supervisors are implementing problem-solving strategies consistently.
• Collaborative problem-solving. One example of how NOPD engages in collaborative problem-solving is its community outreach and public information effort. NOPD developed district-specific collaborative partnership to solve problems faced by the community. Once approved by the Monitoring Team, the results of the plan will be incorporated in MAX as described below. .
• Procedural Justice. Officers should be treating people with treating people with dignity and respect, giving individuals “voice” during encounters, being neutral and transparent in decision making, and conveying trustworthy motives. For example, officers should introduce themselves on a traffic stop, professionally

7

NOPD stood up its MAX program in October 2016. MAX stands for “Management Analysis for

Xcellence.” See http://nopdnews.com/post/october-2016/how-did-nopd-create-max/ for NOPD’s

description of the MAX program.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 39 of 62
Page 39 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
explain why the person was stopped, and articulate any police actions and answer any reasonable questions during the encounter, among other responsibilities related to procedural justice.
• Youth engagement. As part of youth engagement, the school resource officers will be the Department’s front-line personnel to collaborate with different entities such as the Health Department and community groups to engage youth. In addition, NOPD is working to develop a policy on youth engagement to create a more strategic and community-focused school resource officer program. Further, the NOPD recently announced the creation of a Youth Advisory Council, which is intended to create a stronger relationship between the city’s youth and the police department.
NOPD’s community policing plan also incorporates several elements to ensure accountability. According to NOPD, it will measure the effectiveness of its community policing efforts in several ways:
First, we are incorporating the results of the District community policing plans into MAX. This includes describing the project, providing status updates, and including any relevant data to show status of the process for each project. Moreover, performance evaluations for officers will include an assessment of community policing. In addition, the Compliance Bureau’s Audit Unit will conduct reviews examining thoroughness of performance evaluations, procedural justice, and other components of community policing throughout their audit schedule. Finally, other measurements of community policing include accountability metrics for implementation activities, large surveys such as the OCDM biannual survey, the annual NOPD survey, and text-based surveys of PCABs and community groups. Outcome measures will be derived from the accountability framework for community policing.
NOPD also rightly recognizes that training is an integral component of any effective community oriented policing program. Accordingly, NOPD has developed a new in-service curriculum focused on teaching and reinforcing the topics in procedural justice, relationship building, tactical de-escalation, problem-solving, and collaborative problem-solving.
The Monitoring Team has been overseeing and collaborating with NOPD throughout its development of its Community Policing Plan, and while we continue to be concerned that NOPD may not be dedicating sufficient resources to such an important topic, we readily acknowledge the Department’s current aspirations are properly focused. The Monitoring Team recognizes,
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 40 of 62 Page 40 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
however, that NOPD’s success in transforming the police department into a community-orientedpolicing police department ultimately will have to be measured in years, not months. But at this point, we now can say we are confident the Department is heading in the right direction. The success of its efforts, however, will depend on (i) whether NOPD will be able to dedicate adequate personnel to transform its plan into a department-wide philosophy and (ii) whether patrol officers will have adequate time to engage with the community in problem solving in a meaningful way. At the moment, with officers running from call to call, we see little opportunity for engaging with the community to collaboratively solve problems.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 41 of 62 Page 41 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. BIENNIAL COMMUNITY SURVEY Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” The Monitoring Team conducted its first survey – which covered police officers, community members, and detainees – in late 2014 and early 2015. The Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the Department of Justice to develop a three-part survey that would measure public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters. The surveys were designed to include a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. (CD 231) The Monitoring Team developed and conducted its follow-up survey in late 2016 and early 2017. The results of the Surveys will be presented in a forthcoming Special Report, due out early July 2017.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 42 of 62
Page 42 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVI. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING
While the NOPD Academy continues to make progress toward transforming itself into a professional institution, and while the Academy’s current management clearly are leading the Academy in that direction, the Monitoring Team continues to have concerns regarding the pace of change and our inability to fully evaluate quality in the absence of some course materials.
One area of particular concern is the ongoing lack of approved lesson plans. As just one very recent example, the Academy scheduled supervisory in-service training in early March. When the Monitoring Team showed up to observe the training, we were told the course had been postponed because only one lesson plan had been prepared. Other courses likewise still are operating without approved lesson plans.
Last quarter, at the request of the Court, the Monitoring Team initiated an expanded effort to provide Technical Assistance to the Academy. Through this effort, which we refer to as a “Bottom’s Up Approach,” the Monitoring Team has partnered with the various members of the Academy to support the review and revision of curricula, lesson plans, and teaching materials. To date, the Monitoring Team has approved multiple lesson plans, but there is much work left to do in this area.
Notwithstanding the slow progress in this area, as we reported to the Court at a recent status conference, the Monitoring Team remains quite pleased with the cooperation we receive from Academy personnel since the initiation of the Bottom’s Up Approach as well as the commitment to reform we continue to receive from Academy management. We are confident the Academy is heading in the right direction albeit more slowly than we (and probably they) would like.8

8

While not reviewed in detail this reporting period, the Monitoring Team remains concerned with the

resources the City has made available to the Academy. The absence of an NOPD firing range, outdated

technology, limited equipment, and, until recently, an outdated building all present obstacles to the ongoing

efforts by NOPD, Academy personnel, the DOJ, and the Monitoring Team to transform the Academy into a

world-class institution. The Monitoring Team’s next report will provide a more detailed discussion of

these ongoing concerns.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 43 of 62 Page 43 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVII. SUPERVISION
A. Supervision Generally
The Monitoring Team continues to conduct regular audits and reviews of NOPD’s compliance with the supervision requirements of the Consent Decree. Among other things, we continue to conduct regular audits of each District’s compliance with the Consent Decree’s Custodial Interrogation, Photographic Line-up, and Supervision requirements. The results of these reviews show improvements in most every district.
The two areas that continue to require further attention by NOPD are (1) finding a way to give supervisors time to actually supervise, and (2) teaching supervisors how to use the Department’s new Insight system to supervise effectively. As the Monitoring Team has noted in the past, the number of responsibilities of supervisors and the previously-inadequate focus on efficiency combine to make it extremely difficult for even the best supervisors to find time to closely and effectively supervise their officers. Further, as described elsewhere in this report, while the new Insight early warning system offers great new tools to facilitate close and effective supervision, if supervisors are not sufficiently trained on how to take advantage of those tools, NOPD’s efforts to achieve full compliance with its Supervision obligations will continue to lag.
B. Supervisory Duties and Related Items
1. Paragraph 306
Paragraph 306 of the Consent Decree provides that “NOPD supervisors shall be held accountable for providing the close and effective supervision necessary to direct and guide officers.” The Consent Decree goes on to define close and effective supervision as including the following:
• Responding to the scene of certain arrests;
• Reviewing each arrest report;
• Responding to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement;
• Investigating each use of force (except those investigated by FIT);
• Reviewing the accuracy and completeness of officers’ Daily Activity Reports;
• Responding to each complaint of misconduct;
• Ensuring that officers are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust and safety; and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 44 of 62
Page 44 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• Providing counseling, redirection, and support to officers as needed, and that supervisors are held accountable for performing each of these duties.
As summarized below, NOPD demonstrated either full or partial compliance with the following items this audit period:

3D

Respond to Arrests

Compliant

Review Arrests

Compliant

Review Daily Activity
Respond to Complaints

Partial Compliant

Investigate Complaints

Compliant

Engage Community

Partial

Provide Counsel

Compliant

Provide Redirection
Provide Support

Compliant Partial

4D Partial Compliant Compliant Partial Compliant Partial Compliant Compliant Partial

5D Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant
Partial Partial Partial Compliant

6D Compliant Compliant Compliant
Partial COMP Partial Compliant Compliant Compliant

7D Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant
Partial Compliant Compliant Compliant

Some of the reasons for some of the partial compliance scores noted above include trip sheets from General Assignment officers not available for review by the Monitoring Team, the absence of evidence that some supervisors actively prompt officers to engage in community policing, and the absence of evidence of community policing and/or community engagement. While some districts were able to provide evidence of several commendable community events, often these events were organized by the same officers. Several Districts were unable to provide evidence
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 45 of 62
Page 45 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

that all or at least most supervisors were actively working to ensure their officers meaningfully engage with the Community. We should note here, however, that the NOPD’s forthcoming Community Policing program likely will help remedy this compliance gap.
2. Paragraph 307
Paragraph 307 provides that “all Field Operations Bureau District officers (including patrol, task force, district investigative, and narcotics units) shall be assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-defined supervisor.” The Districts audited this period demonstrated either full or partial compliance with the obligations under paragraph 307, as summarized below:

Patrol
General Assignments
Investigators

3D Compliant
Partial
Compliant

4D Compliant Compliant
Compliant

5D
Compliant Substantial Compliance Compliant

6D Compliant
Partial
Partial

7D Compliant Compliant
Compliant

3. Paragraph 308
Paragraph 308 provides that “task force and narcotics supervisors shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise absent unusual circumstance or when the supervisor is on vacation, in training, or ill.” Paragraph 308 goes on to provide that “Investigative unit supervisors shall work generally the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise, taking into account that shift differences will not permit complete supervisory overlap.”

General Assignments
Investigators

3D Partial Partial

4D
NonCompliant
Compliant

5D Partial Partial

6D Partial Partial

7D Compliant Partial

The Fourth District was not in compliance this audit period because the General Assignment sergeant in the Fourth District works with one-half of his subordinate officers and the other onehalf report to other supervisors when he is not scheduled to work.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 46 of 62
Page 46 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
4. Paragraph 309
Paragraph 309 provides that “District Platoon Patrol supervisors shall be assigned to the same platoon as the officers they supervise and shall actually work the same days and hours as the officers of that platoon absent unusual circumstances or when the supervisor is on vacation, training, or ill.” The Districts we reviewed this period were fully compliant with this requirement.
5. Paragraph 310
Paragraph 310 provides that “first-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned to supervise no more than eight officers.” The paragraph goes on to provide that “on duty patrol supervisors shall be available throughout their shift to respond to the field to provide supervision to officers under their direct command and, as needed, to provide supervisory assistance to other units.” The Districts we reviewed this period were able to demonstrate either full compliance (the 4th and the 5th districts) or partial compliance (the 3rd, 6th, and 7th districts).
6. Paragraph 311
Paragraph 311 requires NOPD “to develop and implement a program to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in, on a temporary, as-needed basis, for assigned supervisors who are on vacation, in training, ill, or otherwise temporarily unavailable.” The paragraph further requires NOPD to “ensure consistent supervision by acting supervisors for supervisors who are on extended leave, and shall reassign officers to a new permanent non-acting supervisor when the currently assigned supervisor has been or is expected to be absent for an extended period of over six weeks.” NOPD continues to be Not In Compliance with this paragraph. The Training Academy, for example, has not developed training or trained any personnel as acting patrol supervisors. Further, no program currently exists to identify and train acting patrol supervisors who can fill-in for assigned supervisors.
7. Paragraph 312
Paragraph 312 provides that “District commanders and platoon lieutenants shall be responsible for the close and effective supervision of officers under their command.” Paragraph 312 further requires that “all NOPD commanders and platoon lieutenants shall ensure that all subordinates under their direct command comply with NOPD policy, state and federal law, and the requirements of this Agreement.” Little evidence was provided during the Monitoring Team’s audit that supervisors were routinely meeting the obligations under this paragraph. NOPD, thus, is not yet in compliance with its obligations under Paragraph 312.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 47 of 62
Page 47 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
8. Paragraph 313
Paragraph 313 provides that “NOPD shall hold commanders and supervisors directly accountable for the quality and effectiveness of their supervision, including whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations and through non-disciplinary corrective action, or through the initiation of formal investigation and the disciplinary process, as appropriate.”
The Monitoring Team’s audit identified very few documents that provided evidence supervisors were held accountable for performing their duties. Supervisors’ reports generally did not include information concerning orders relayed from higher authority, direction to officers regarding engagement of the public, or discipline. Supervisors’ and officers’ performance evaluations generally were not available and few disciplinary reports were available.
Neither were the performance evaluations we reviewed adequate to assess supervisors’ performance. Generally, the evaluations did not include a section to evaluate “whether commanders and supervisors identify and effectively respond to misconduct, as part of their performance evaluations” as required by paragraph 313 of the consent decree. The Department, thus, is not yet in compliance with its obligations under Paragraph 313.
9. Paragraph 314
Paragraph 314 requires NOPD “to develop and implement mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors.” The paragraph further provides that supervisors shall receive 200 hours of mandatory supervisory training within two years of the Effective Date; that all officers becoming supervisors within two years of the Effective Date shall receive 160 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties; that all officers becoming supervisors after two years of the Effective Date shall receive 80 hours of initial supervisory training before assuming supervisory duties; and that each supervisor to complete at least 40 hours of supervisor-specific training annually thereafter.
NOPD demonstrated partial compliance with its obligations under Paragraph 314. For example, NOPD has developed and implemented mandatory supervisory training for all new and current supervisors. The lesson plans for this training, however, have not been provided for review.
The Department was able to demonstrate full compliance with its obligations to provide sergeants promoted since April 2014 160 hours of supervisory training and its obligation to provide sergeants promoted since April 2014 received at least 80 hours of supervisory training. In other areas, however, NOPD may be in compliance, but the Department was unable to provide documentation of compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 48 of 62
Page 48 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
10. Paragraph 315
Paragraph 315 provides that “NOPD’s supervisory training program shall include instruction in several enumerated topics, including techniques for effectively guiding and directing officers, and for promoting effective and ethical police practices.” While the Department’s supervisory training schedule lists ethics as a one and one-half hour training session, a lesson plan was not available to determine whether the ethics training was designed for guiding and directing officers and for promoting effective and ethical police practices. Similarly, while the Academy informed the Monitoring Team that the necessary subject matter was included in the police issues and ethics course provided in 2015, again, a lesson plan has not been provided.
With regard to de-escalating conflict training, report writing, and investigations into uses of force, use of supervisory tools, burdens of proof, interview techniques, and several others, the Department was unable to demonstrate compliance because it still is unable to provide a compliant lesson plan.
Specifically with regard to EWS (Insight) training, the Department is not yet in compliance with its training obligations. The Monitoring Team attended the Department’s Insight course, which did not incorporate the required materials. Furthermore, a lesson plan has not been produced yet.
C. The Insight Early Warning System
An Early Warning System (“EWS”), also called an Early Intervention System, “is a data-based management tool designed to identify officers whose performance exhibits problems, and then to provide interventions, usually counseling or training, to correct those performance problems.” DOJ COPS Report (Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies) (2003). Paragraph 316 of the Consent Decree requires the City and NOPD “to develop, implement, and maintain an [early warning system] to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible.” The Consent Decree further requires NOPD “to regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts.” Id.
The Monitoring Team audits NOPD’s various districts on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, focusing on a variety of Consent Decree compliance areas. Since our last Quarterly Report, we audited every district at least once. Our most recent audit took place in January 2017 and covered Districts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and SOD, and focused on NOPD’s compliance with the Early Warning System elements of the Consent Decree. We also met with and evaluated Headquarters personnel. A summary of our findings follows.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 49 of 62
Page 49 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

1. EWS Status Overview
NOPD has demonstrated an impressive commitment to designing, developing, and rolling out an effective early warning system. Development of the system, called Insight, has been a massive undertaking, and NOPD deserves significant credit for keeping the project on target, on budget, and on schedule. While our audits identified a need for further EWS training for NOPD supervisors and identified areas for system improvements, those findings should not take away from the impressive work undertaken to date.
2. EWS Specific Findings9
a. Paragraph 316
Paragraph 316 requires the City and NOPD to “develop, implement, and maintain an EWS to support the effective supervision and management of NOPD officers and employees, including the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors as early as possible. NOPD will regularly use EWS data to promote constitutional and professional police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of NOPD employees across all ranks, units, and shifts.” The NOPD has made progress in each of these areas, but more work needs to be done.

Develop & Maintain EWS

Identify & Respond to Problematic Behaviors

Use EWS Data to Promote
Constitutional Policing

Use EWS Data To Manage Risk

Use EWS Data to Evaluate Employee Performance

Partial Compliance
Partial Compliance
Partial Compliance
Partial Compliance
Partial Compliance

In all fairness to NOPD, the Monitoring Team would not expect any more than “Partial Compliance” from the Department at this point. The Insight system came on-line only recently, and its full functionality and full use necessarily will take some time.

9

The following sections present illustrative findings. For purposes of brevity, we have not presented the

Monitoring Team’s findings for each subsection of each paragraph. That detail, however, has been

provided to NOPD to facilitate the Department’s ongoing efforts to achieve full and sustained compliance

with all elements of the Consent Decree.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 50 of 62
Page 50 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

b. Paragraph 317
Paragraph 317 requires the City and NOPD “to create a plan for the implementation of the EWS, which shall include the hiring of at least one full-time-equivalent qualified information technology specialist within 270 days of the Effective Date, to facilitate the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EWS.” The City and NOPD further must “maintain sufficient staffing to facilitate EWS data input and provide training and assistance to EWS users.” NOPD is compliant with certain elements and partly compliant with other elements of Paragraph 317. For example:

Create EWS Implementation
Plan

Hire Full-Time IT Specialist

Maintain Sufficient Data Input Staffing

Maintain Suffient Training Staff

Compliant Compliant
Partial Compliance
Partial Compliance

The Monitoring Team has raised its training concerns with NOPD and is working with the Department to ensure all supervisors are fully trained in Insight’s capabilities and in how effectively to apply those capabilities.
c. Paragraph 318 Paragraph 318 requires the City and NOPD to “develop and implement a protocol setting out which fields shall include historical data; the historical start date for each field; deadlines for inputting data related to current and new information; and the individuals responsible for capturing and inputting data. NOPD is not expected to include any historical data prior to January 1, 2006.” NOPD is in full compliance with this paragraph.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 51 of 62
Page 51 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Develop Historical Data Protocol

Include Required Elements In Protocol

Compliant Compliant

The protocols developed by NOPD are consistent with the Consent Decree and properly aimed at creating an effective early warning system.
d. Paragraph 319
Paragraph 319 required the City and NOPD “to develop and implement a protocol for using the EWS and information obtained from it.” “The protocol for using the EWS shall address data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, identifying officers for intervention, supervisory use, supervisory/departmental intervention, documentation and audit.” NOPD is in Partial Compliance with these requirements. For example:

Include Comparative Data and Peer
Group Analysis

Regular Supervisor
Review

Quarterly Supervisor Review of Pattern-Based
Reports

Development of Array of Intervention Options

Supervisor Reviews of Effectiveness
of Interventions

Involve Mental Health
Professions Were
Necessary

Secure EWS Data To Ensure Integrity

Document Interventions

Compliant Partial Compliance Partial Compliance Partial Compliance Partial Compliance
Compliant Compliant Compliant

The Monitoring Team maintains regular contact with NOPD personnel charged with developing NOPD’s early warning system, and will continue working with NOPD to ensure effective implementation and use of Insight.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 52 of 62
Page 52 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

e. Paragraph 320
Paragraph 320 sets out the data to be included in NOPD’s EWS. The Consent Decree requires that the EWS “include a computerized relational database, which shall be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve a multitude of data.” The Monitoring Team reviewed whether the data were available AND whether supervisors were able to locate the data. In most cases, the required data were included in the EWS, but in several cases supervisors were not able to access the data. Accordingly, NOPD is in compliance with some, but not all of the Consent Decree requirements. For example:

All Uses of Force

ECW Units In Canine Officer

Use

Bit Ratios

Misconduct Complaints

Loss/Theft Of NOPD
Equipment

Firearms Qualifications

Motion To Suppress Evidence

Judicial Proceedings

Vehicle Pursuits

In-Custody Injuries

Compliant Not Compliant Not Compliant
Compliant Not Compliant
Compliant Not Compliant Partial Compliance Partial Compliance Not Compliant

NOPD is aware of the areas in which it is not yet compliant, and has committed to work diligently to bring itself into compliance in these areas in short order. The Monitoring Team will continue to monitor the Department’s progress in these areas.
f. Paragraph 321 Paragraph 321 requires that NOPD’s Insight system “include appropriate identifying information for each involved employee (i.e., name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender). NOPD is in compliance with this paragraph.
EWS Includes Identifying Information
Compliant
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 53 of 62
Page 53 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

g. Paragraph 322
Paragraph 322 requires the City and NOPD “to maintain computer hardware, including servers, terminals, and other necessary equipment, in sufficient amount and in good working order to permit personnel, including supervisors and commanders, ready and secure access to the EWS system to permit timely input and review of EWS data as necessary to comply with the requirements of this Agreement.” NOPD is in compliance with these requirements.

Maintain Sufficient IT Hardware

Ensure Ready and Secure Access to
EWS

Permit Timely Input And Review
of EWS Data

Compliant Compliant Compliant

h. Paragraph 323
Paragraph 323 requires NOPD to “maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the EWS for at least five years following the officer’s separation from the agency except where prohibited by law.” Paragraph 323 further requires that “information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the EWS, [and that] on an ongoing basis, NOPD will enter information into the EWS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and shall maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.” Finally, Paragraph 323 provides that “no individual within NOPD shall have access to individually identifiable information that is maintained only within the EWS and is about an officer not within that individual’s direct command, except as necessary for investigative, technological, or auditing purposes.” NOPD is mostly in compliance with these obligations.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 54 of 62
Page 54 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Maintain PII For Five Years

Maintain Compliance
Data Indefinitely

Enter EWS Data Timely, Accurately,
and Completely

Limit Access to EWS Data Except for
Certain Purposes

Maintain Data Securely and Confidentially

Compliant Compliant
Partial Compliance Compliant Compliance

The only reason NOPD receives a “Partial Compliance” in one area is because, as noted above, the Insight system is not yet populated with all data required by the Consent Decree.
i. Paragraph 324
Paragraph 324 requires that the “EWS computer program and computer hardware will be operational, fully implemented, and used in accordance with policies and protocols that incorporate the requirements of [the Consent Decree] pursuant to an interim schedule that includes full implementation within three years of the Effective Date.” Paragraph 324 goes on to require that, prior to full implementation of the new EWS, “NOPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by employees or groups of officers.”

Full Implementation

Use Existing Databases To Identify Patterns

Partial Compliance

Compliant

While, as noted above, NOPD has made significant progress, the Monitoring Team’s audit revealed some District Supervisors still are unable to locate some required information. Further, our audits revealed the need for additional supervisor training regarding how to use Insight. Finally, while much of Insight is populated with required data, some required information has yet to be included.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 55 of 62
Page 55 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

j. Paragraph 325
Paragraph 325 requires that NOPD “provide in-service training to all employees, including officers, supervisors, and commanders regarding EWS protocols prior to its implementation, as required to facilitate proper understanding and use of the system.” The paragraph further requires that “NOPD supervisors shall be trained in and required to use the EWS to ensure that each supervisor has a complete and current understanding of the employees under the supervisor’s command.” Finally, the paragraph provides that “Commanders and supervisors shall be trained in evaluating and making appropriate comparisons in order to identify any significant individual or group patterns.” NOPD is in partial compliance with these obligations.

In-Service Training

Basic Supervisory
Training

Supervisory Training To Identify Patterns

Partial Compliance

Partial Compliance

Partial Compliance

In short, while training has been provided, additional training is necessary so that supervisors have a complete understanding of EWS, when it is to be used and the purpose of its use including performance evaluations.
2. Insight EWS Summary: Areas For Further Improvement
While NOPD has made significant progress and the Insight system holds great promise, the Department now must focus its efforts on effectively training its supervisors to take advantage of the wealth of information contained in Insight. NOPD’s training efforts should take into consideration the following Monitor Team findings:
• Some supervisors are not aware that PIB information from one district followed the officer to another District when the officer was transferred.
• Some supervisors are unable to locate some information in EWS. This included interviews and interrogations in violation of NOPD policy, declination to prosecute due to officer credibility, disciplinary actions, non-disciplinary actions, and sick leave.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 56 of 62 Page 56 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Some supervisors were unable to use Insight to provide a list of all subordinates.
• Some supervisors had not reviewed all subordinates’ information.
• Some supervisors were not aware if subordinates had reviewed their information.
• Some supervisors had not reviewed the information with subordinates to determine if it is correct.
• Some supervisors only located some information after searching when monitored by the Monitoring Team. This included criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, and restraining orders.
• Some supervisors were unaware of periodic checks of EWS information regular reviews of information that had to be at least quarterly.
• Some supervisors stated they had not viewed any unusual activity. No training has been provided to identify unusual activity.
• Most supervisors could not explain how to “identify patterns of conduct” as required in paragraph 324.
• Supervisors need additional training to understand how to process an alert. Instead of reviewing only the information contained in the alert, a proper review should also include other officer activity to determine if a trend is developing (For example, if a citizen complaint is the cause for an alert, the supervisor should be reviewing all citizen complaints, use of force in comparison with the officer’s peer group, sick time, counseling, discipline, and other important indicators.
• Supervisors, when handling alerts, are reviewing the information in that alert and answering the questions related to the alert. Most do not review other officer information while addressing the alert. This is something supervisors should do.
• More training is necessary so that supervisors understand the purpose of EWS and its use with quarterly reviews and completion of performance evaluations.
• Training should be provided to instruct supervisors to document the periodic reviews, conducted at least quarterly, of Insight information.
Our audits also identified a need for additional effort on the part of NOPD to include certain categories of data in the Insight system.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 57 of 62
Page 57 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

That being said, and as noted above, the Department’s efforts designing, developing, and rolling out its EWS system have been impressive. The Insight system holds great promise for the Department and the Community.

D. Supervision: Visual and Audio Documentation of Police Activities

The Monitoring Team conducted a periodic Supervision audit of Districts 3 and 6 during the week of January 3, 2017 and of Districts 4, 5, 7, and SOD during the week of January 30, 2017. A summary of our findings follows.

1. Paragraph 327

Paragraph 327 requires NOPD, among other things, to “maintain and operate video cameras and AVL in all marked or unmarked vehicles that are assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine and shall repair or replace all nonfunctioning video cameras or AVL units, as necessary for reliable functioning.”10 The paragraph also requires NOPD “to ensure that recordings are captured, maintained, and reviewed as appropriate by supervisors, in addition to any review for investigatory or audit purposes, to assess the quality and appropriateness of officer interactions, uses of force, and other police activities.” NOPD continues to make significant progress meeting these requirements.

The following tables reflects the results of our audit of operable in-car cameras:

District

No. Vehicles No. Operable Cameras

Percentage Operable Cameras

D3

20

18

90%

D4

24

24

100%

D5

14

14

100%

D6

24

24

100%

D7

19

19

100%

SOD

20

18

90%

The Monitoring Team’s audits also assessed whether NOPD’s vehicles are equipped with operable AVL (automatic vehicle locator) capabilities. NOPD demonstrates full compliance with its AVL obligations this period.

10

An AVL is an Automatic Vehicle Locator.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 58 of 62
Page 58 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Paragraph 328
Paragraph 328 provides that “NOPD agrees to develop and implement policies and procedures regarding AVL, in-car cameras, ECWs, and similar equipment. . . .” NOPD demonstrated substantial compliance with this requirement during this audit period with one exception noted below. The areas in which NOPD is in compliance include the following:
• NOPD developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding, in-car cameras that require activation of in-car cameras for all traffic stops and pursuits until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the officer’s participation in the motor vehicle stop ends. COMPLIANT
• NOPD developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding activation of in-car cameras, where vehicle is so-equipped, to record requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployment of drug- detection canines, and vehicle searches. COMPLIANT
• NOPD developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding activation of in-car cameras for incidents in which a prisoner being transported is violent or resistant. COMPLIANT
• NOPD developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding supervisors to review in-car camera recordings of all officers listed in any NOPD report regarding any incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, or misconduct complaints. COMPLIANT
• NOPD supervisors review recordings regularly. COMPLIANT
• NOPD officer promptly notify supervisors where an event was not recorded. COMPLIANT
The one area that still needs additional NOPD attention relates to supervisors incorporating the knowledge gained from the review of recordings into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers. NOPD currently maintains no documentation to provide evidence of compliance with this provision. Performance evaluations do not include this field and the performance evaluations reviewed do not include this information.
3. Paragraph 329
Paragraph 329 obligates NOPD “to develop and implement a schedule for testing AVL, in-car camera, and ECW recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.” The paragraph provides further that “[o]fficers shall be responsible for ensuring that recording
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 59 of 62 Page 59 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
equipment assigned to them or their car is functioning properly at the beginning and end of each shift and shall report immediately any improperly functioning equipment.” NOPD has developed and implemented a schedule for testing AVLs. In fact, the Districts we audited this period (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and SOD) conduct daily tests of equipment. The Monitoring Team likewise found NOPD to be in compliance with the other elements of Paragraph 329. Thus, for the period audited, NOPD is in Full Compliance with its obligations under Paragraph 329.
4. Paragraph 330 Paragraph 330 provides that “supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that officers under their command use in-car camera recording equipment, AVL equipment, ECW cameras, and similar equipment, as required by policy. Supervisors shall report equipment problems and seek to have equipment repaired as needed. Supervisors shall refer for investigation any officer found to fail to properly use or care for in-car camera recording, AVL, ECW camera, or similar equipment.” NOPD was able to demonstrate full compliance with its obligations under Paragraph 330 this period.
5. Paragraph 331 Paragraph 331 requires NOPD “to provide each supervisor with handheld digital recording devices and require that supervisors use these devices to record complainant and witness statements taken as part of use of force or misconduct complaint investigations.” The Districts we audited this period were in full compliance with this requirement.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 60 of 62
Page 60 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Coordination with IPM (CD 459)
The Consent Decree provides the Monitoring Team shall coordinate and confer with the Independent Police Monitor. (CD 459) The Monitoring Team continues to be impressed by the passion, dedication, and impact of the IPM; and recognizes the respect the organization has within the New Orleans community. The Monitoring Team remains pleased with and grateful for the level of cooperation it receives from the IPM.
B. NOPD Consent Decree Implementation Unit (CD 467)
Paragraph 467 of the Consent Decree provides that the City and NOPD will “hire and retain, or reassign current NOPD employees to form, an inter-disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation” of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree goes on to explain this unit “will serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitoring Team and will assist with the implementation of and compliance with this Agreement.”
As noted in the Monitoring Team’s prior reports, “a fully functioning, adequately staffed, and properly resourced Consent Decree Implementation Unit is a critical component of NOPD’s ability to come into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.” NOPD has been in compliance with its obligations under paragraph 467 since 2014 when it fully staffed the Consent Decree Implementation Unit. The Monitoring Team continues to be pleased by the Unit’s knowledge, skill level, and demonstrated commitment to the Consent Decree process; and recognizes the full cooperation it continues to receive from the Unit.
C. NOPD and City Cooperation (CD 470 – 476)
The Consent Decree provides the City and NOPD shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Team in all aspects of its responsibilities. We are pleased to report that the City and NOPD continued to cooperate with the Monitoring Team throughout this reporting period. The level of cooperation we received from the Superintendent and his leadership team is worthy of particular note here. Superintendent Harrison, Chief Noel, Chief Thomas, Chief Westbrook, Chief Murphy, Commander Eckert, Commander Goodly, Dr. Magee, and many others all continue to play a critical role in implementing the reforms of the Consent Decree and in ensuring their respective teams work closely with the Monitoring Team. The Department would not have made the progress it has made so far without their leadership.
The Monitoring Team also continues to receive the full cooperation of and continues to work closely with the New Orleans Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). While the OIG’s activities do not fall within our monitoring responsibilities under the Consent Decree, the OIG has kept us apprised of its audit plans and investigators as they relate to the NOPD. We continue to be
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 61 of 62 Page 61 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com impressed by the quality of the OIG personnel with whom we work and with the quality and thoroughness of the OIG’s work product. The Monitoring Team looks forward to an ongoing positive relationship with the OIG.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 525-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 62 of 62 Page 62 of 62 June 19, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. CONCLUSION As noted at the outset of this Report, the New Orleans Police Department has made great
progress over the past two years in meeting its obligations under the Consent Decree. This progress has been driven by numerous facts, including support, guidance, and pressure from an active federal judge overseeing NOPD’s progress, assistance from a supportive Department of Justice team with extensive experience in police reform, and extensive technical assistance from a Monitoring Team that firmly believes the best results come from collaboration rather than combat. But as much as this support has helped guide NOPD forward, it all would be for naught if NOPD didn’t have an innovative, open-minded, and energetic leadership team committed to reform. As we have said previously, while NOPD’s progress has hit roadblocks from time to time, and while the Department continues to face hurdles, the Department’s current management continues to impress the Monitoring Team. Likewise, the bulk of the Department’s current supervisors and patrol officers with whom we regularly deal also seem committed to reform. As one officer put it to us recently, “I just want to work for a Department I can be proud of. And we’re getting there.” We heartily agree.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 129
Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Reporting the Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey Released July 24, 2017
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 129 Page 2 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. CONSENT DECREE AUTHORITY “Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety. To conduct the biennial community survey, the Monitor shall retain an individual or entity, to be approved by DOJ . . . . NOPD and the City agree to cooperate with the design and conduct of the survey by, for example, helping to organize focus groups of officers and obtaining and providing previous survey instruments and data. The report of the baseline survey and subsequent biennial surveys shall be publicly distributed and available.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 230-233
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 129 Page 3 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com II. NOTES “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 129 Page 4 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Consent Decree Authority........................................................................................................................... 2 II. Notes .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 4 IV. Glossary of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 7 V. Introduction to The Special Report ........................................................................................................ 9 VI. New Orleans Police Department Officer Survey: 2016 ............................................................... 12
A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................12 1. Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 12 2. Demographics................................................................................................................................... 13
B. Police Officer Survey Analysis.............................................................................................................14 1. Section I: Your Working Environment................................................................................... 14 2. Section II: Managers and Supervisors.................................................................................... 16 3. Section III: Personnel and Management Systems ............................................................. 17 4. Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations.......................... 19 5. Section V: Expectations about the Police Role ................................................................... 22 6. Section VI: The Police Department and the Public ........................................................... 24
C. Police Officer Survey Comparisons (2014 – 2016) ....................................................................26 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 26 2. Police Officer Survey Comparison: Introduction ............................................................. 28 3. Section I: Police Work and Your Working Environment ............................................... 29 4. Section II: Managers and Supervisors.................................................................................... 30 5. Section III: Personnel and Management Systems ............................................................. 31 6. Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations.......................... 32 7. Section V: Expectations about the Police Role ................................................................... 34 8. Section VI: The Police Department and the Public ........................................................... 35 9. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 37
VII. Detainee Survey........................................................................................................................................ 38 A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................38
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 5 of 129
Page 5 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
1. Survey Results .................................................................................................................................. 39 2. Recruitment and participants.................................................................................................... 39 3. Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 39 4. Demographic Characteristics..................................................................................................... 40 B. Detainee Survey Analysis ......................................................................................................................42 1. General Attitudes toward NOPD Officers ............................................................................. 42 2. General Attitudes Toward The NOPD .................................................................................... 46 3. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities .................................................................. 51 4. Perceptions of Arrest..................................................................................................................... 52 5. Future Behavior............................................................................................................................... 54 6. Qualitative Information................................................................................................................ 55 C. Detainee Survey Comparisons (2014 – 2016) .............................................................................55 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 55 2. Attitudes Toward The NOPD...................................................................................................... 57 3. Detainees’ Perceptions of Arrest .............................................................................................. 59 4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 60 VIII. Community Survey .................................................................................................................................. 61 A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................61 B. Community Survey Methodology ......................................................................................................62 C. 2017 NOLA Community Survey Analysis .......................................................................................65 D. Community Survey Comparison (2014‐2016) ............................................................................81 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 81 2. Comparative Analysis.................................................................................................................... 82 3. 2014 and 2017 Overall Comparisons..................................................................................... 85 4. Racial Comparisons between 2014 and 2017 .................................................................... 89 5. Comparison to NOCC Survey...................................................................................................... 97 IX. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................100 X. Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................102 A. Appendix A: Police Officer Survey Distribution ...................................................................... 103 B. Appendix B: Police Officer Survey Comparison Data ............................................................ 104 C. Appendix C: Detainee Survey Graphs .......................................................................................... 121
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 6 of 129 Page 6 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D. Appendix D: Detainee Survey Graphs .......................................................................................... 123 E. Appendix E: Detainee Survey References .................................................................................. 127 F. Appendix F: OPP Jail Demographics ............................................................................................. 128 G. Appendix G – Supplementary Tables ............................................................................................ 129
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 7 of 129
Page 7 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 8 of 129
Page 8 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 9 of 129
Page 9 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

V. INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT
Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety.” The Monitoring Team conducted its first survey – which covered police officers, community members, and detainees – in late 2014 and early 2015. The Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the Department of Justice to develop a three-part survey intended to measure public satisfaction with policing, attitudes among police personnel, and the quality of police-citizen encounters. The surveys were designed to include a representative sample of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. (CD 231)
The Monitoring Team developed and conducted its follow-up survey in late 2016 and early 2017. The results of the Surveys are presented in this Special Report.
Our 2016/2017 follow-up surveys present an increasingly positive picture of policing in New Orleans. While some survey responses identify areas in need of further improvement – and some identify significant areas in need of further improvement – overall, the 2016/2017 data show a significant positive trend in community, officer, and detainee perception of the New Orleans Police Department. For example:

 In the area of community perception, compared to 2014:



Citizens now have better perceptions of their most recent contact with the

NOPD, are more satisfied with the NOPD, have more trust in the NOPD,

and are more willing to cooperate with the NOPD.



Citizens who interacted with NOPD felt they were more likely to be

treated with dignity, respect, and politeness.



Citizens noted improvements in officer honesty, fairness, professionalism,

and integrity.



Citizens felt that improvements in policing had been made in New Orleans,

that the NOPD had become a better police department, and that the NOPD

was less likely to use excessive force than two years ago.



Citizens were more likely to believe corruption in the NOPD is low and

that past NOPD scandals did not reflect current practices.

 In the area of police officer perception, as compared to 2014:



A greater proportion of officers believe their supervisors are good leaders,

are taking the department in the right direction, and treat fellow officers

fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Indeed,

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 10 of 129
Page 10 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

almost 80% of officers surveyed believed current superintendent Michael Harrison is leading the Department in the right direction.



More officers feel NOPD is providing effective training, proper equipment,

and a quality work environment.



More officers feel citizens, fellow officers, and supervisors treat them with

respect.



Officer responses indicate significant improvements in the effectiveness of

NOPD services, officer buy-in to youth programs, respect/trust within the

NOPD, and citizen-perceived fairness of the NOPD.

 With regard to detainee perception, while the raw numbers still reflect a perhaps-understandable but generally negative perception of the NOPD, as compared to 2014:



Detainees, on average, were more satisfied with the way NOPD officers

handled themselves in their specific situations.



In general, more detainees expressed satisfaction with the way NOPD

officers treated them. More detainees held the belief that NOPD officers

treated them with respect, were polite, and listened.



More detainees now feel NOPD officers do their jobs the right way.



More detainees reported the reason for their specific stop/arrest was

adequately explained, they were treated fairly by the stopping/arresting

officer(s), and they were informed of their rights.

These positive trends illustrate the significant effort NOPD has dedicated to its reform efforts and to achieving the goals of the Consent Decree over the past three years. As the Monitoring Team has written before, the Consent Decree was crafted to promote constitutional policing by calling for clear policies that give officers meaningful guidance; officers who have respect for all members of the community; robust training that incorporates procedural justice, respect for all members of the community, and constitutional standards; committed and competent supervisors; thorough and competent investigations into police use of force and allegations of misconduct; and strong partnerships with the community. It is comforting and gratifying to see NOPD’s steady improvement, as acknowledged by the community and its officers.

Along with such positive trends, citizens, officers, and detainees did express criticisms about NOPD. This feedback identifies areas for additional improvement. For example, in the community survey, more than 40% of respondents were not satisfied with the way NOPD officers are doing their jobs. Almost 60% continue to believe officers do not respond to calls for

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 11 of 129 Page 11 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
service in a timely manner, and more than 55% of respondents believe the NOPD has little impact on crime. Another example of negative survey responses relates to citizen cooperation. Community respondents believe residents are more willing to resist NOPD officers now and believe there are fewer officers in their community now than two years ago. As described later in this Report, black respondents’ perceptions of NOPD are improving at a relatively faster pace than whites. Overall, perceptions varied by race; a persisting gap in white and black community members’ responses highlights a host of opportunities for further reform. The officer survey findings indicate some areas where officers maintain negative perceptions. For example, many officers continue to perceive the citizen complaint process and the internal complaint process as unfair. Many respondents (almost 36%) also perceive that the community doesn’t appreciate the work of NOPD officers. Each of these areas, and others identified later in this Report, presents an important opportunity for continued NOPD self-improvement. It must be kept in mind, however, that the Monitoring Team’s survey is designed to reveal the perceptions of community members – be they officers, detainees, or civilians. The survey results do not tell us whether those perceptions are fact-based or not. Regardless, negative perceptions reflect areas where additional effort on NOPD’s part is necessary. Where findings reveal a genuine problem, NOPD must work to identify and cure the underlying cause. Where they reveal a perceived problem, NOPD must work to identify and cure the cause of the misperception. In both cases, however, the survey results will help give NOPD, City leaders, the Monitoring Team, the DOJ, and interested community members a roadmap to channel current and future reform efforts. With a collaborate approach, we can expect to see the overwhelmingly positive trends revealed in the 2016/2017 data continue into the future.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 12 of 129 Page 12 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VI. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER SURVEY: 2016
A. Executive Summary
The Monitoring Team surveyed two hundred eighty-one NOPD officers about the NOPD, the New Orleans community, and their perceptions regarding policing and police-community relations. The survey results are summarized below:
 Attitudes regarding the work environment at NOPD were positive, although there was some concern regarding equipment.
 The most common reasons for officers joining the NOPD were to help the community become a safer place and to help people.
 Officers believe their supervisors are good leaders, are taking the Department in the right direction, and treat fellow officers fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
 Many officers perceive investigations conducted by the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau (PIB is NOPD’s internal affairs unit) are unfair.
 Overall, officers had mixed feelings about the NOPD disciplinary process.
 NOPD officers have positive feelings about the quality of police-community relations and improvements the NOPD has made in recent years.
 Officers rated all police functions about which they were questioned as important, but the functions rated to be least important include conducting foot patrol, issuing traffic tickets, and dealing with noisy parties.
 An overwhelming majority of the officers believe that residents do not understand the problems NOPD officers face.
 Officers were critical of the media’s treatment of the NOPD and its officers.
These findings are discussed in more detail below, after a brief discussion of our survey methodology.
1. Methodology
In November and December 2016, the Monitoring Team asked NOPD officers to complete a written survey. The NOPD Compliance Bureau administered the survey under the direction of the Monitoring Team. A Compliance Bureau staff member was assigned to attend roll calls at each platoon at each District, and at Divisions and Bureaus to ask officers to complete the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 13 of 129
Page 13 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

surveys. Officers were told that completion of the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Each survey was handed out in a sealed envelope to protect the anonymity of the officer. The majority of the surveys were administered between November 16th – 25th. The Academy staff and a few others were administered the survey in December.

There were 323 surveys administered, resulting in 281 completed surveys returned, a response rate of 87%. Appendix A contains the distribution of surveys in 2016. The number of respondents reflects the number of officers available. Many officers were on sick leave, vacation, or assigned to other areas of the Department that made administration to a larger number of officers extremely difficult. During the week in November when surveys were administered, many officers were on leave in order to prepare for Bayou Classic coverage. The Department allows officers to take two days off before scheduled special events that may require long working hours.

2. Demographics

Table 1 presents demographic information on the 281 participants, although it is important to note that many respondents opted not to answer the demographic questions on the survey. A slight majority of respondents were male (53.0%), although it is notable that over a quarter (26.33%) of participants refused to identify as male or female for the gender question, leaving this item blank. A plurality of respondents (35.6%) indicated they were black, with 23.5% noting white, 2.1% noting Latino/Hispanic, 0.7% noting other, and 31.3% not responding to the question. The race data for sworn officers at NOPD denote 56% black, 39% white, 3% Hispanic and 1% Asian. These data indicate officers reported their race on surveys at approximately the same racial breakdown of NOPD officers generally. Roughly half of respondents (50.5%) indicated they lived in New Orleans and slightly less than half (49.8%) were at the rank of police officer. The respondent’s average age was 41.2 years old and the average years of experience were 12.8 years.

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Gender

Male

149

53.0

Female

58

20.6

Race

White

66

23.5

Black

100

35.6

Latino/Hispanic

6

2.1

Other

21

0.7

New Orleans Resident

Yes

142

50.5

No

92

32.7

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 14 of 129
Page 14 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Rank

Police Officer

140

49.8

Detective

28

10.0

Sergeant

44

15.7

Lieutenant/Captain

14

5.0

Commander/Other

1

0.4

Age

Mean=41.2 years old

Years of Experience

Mean=12.8 years

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values.

B. Police Officer Survey Analysis

1. Section I: Your Working Environment

Section I of the survey contains questions concerning perceptions of the working environment at NOPD (Table 2). Overall, these attitudes are relatively positive. Officers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with seven statements on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).1 The average response to “Civilians in my district treat me with respect,” (M=3.05), “My district/division provides a quality work environment,” (M=3.08), and “I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively” (M=3.03) all fell in the Agree response category. The average rating for the two items pertaining to respect from fellow officers (M=3.45) and supervisors (M=3.43) had average responses between Agree and Strongly Agree. The most negative attitudes toward the NOPD working environment are for the item regarding the equipment provided by the NOPD to the officers. The average response was neutral (M=2.46) with similar percentages of officers indicating they disagreed (48.8%) and agreed (47.7%). Finally, on average, officers believe that the quality of relationships among racial and ethnic groups in the NOPD were good (M=3.13).

Table 2. Responses to Section I: “Your Working Environment”

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%) N (%)

1. Civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M=3.05)

13 (4.6) 29 (10.3)

2. In my district, my fellow officers treat me with respect. (M=3.45)

3 (1.1) 9 (3.2)

Agree N (%) 147 (52.3)
121 (43.1)

Strongly Agree N (%) 69 (24.6)
134 (47.7)

1

In the tables throughout this Report, “N” is the number of respondents and “M” is the average response

overall, measured on a scale of Strongly Agree=4, Agree=3, Disagree=2, and Strongly Disagree=1. In

general, the more respondents agree with an item, the closer M should be to 4, the more respondents

disagree, M would be closer to 1, and a neutral response would be noted as an M score near 2.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 15 of 129
Page 15 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Responses to Section I: “Your Working Environment”

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%) N (%)

3. In my district, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M=3.43)

6 (2.1) 12 (4.3)

Agree N (%) 113 (40.2)

Strongly Agree N (%)
140 (49.8)

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M=3.08)

9 (3.2) 49 (17.4) 122 (43.4) 88 (31.3)

5. I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. (M=3.03)

8 (2.9) 46 (16.4) 146 (52.0) 71 (25.3)

6. I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. (M=2.46)

42 (15.0) 95 (33.8) 100 (35.6)

34 (12.1)

Very Bad Bad

Good

Very Good

8. Overall, within the NOPD, how would you

describe the quality of relationships among differing racial and ethnic groups?

4 (1.4) 26 (9.3) 167 (59.4) 69 (24.6)

(M=3.13)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

In addition to rating the NOPD’s work environment, this section of the survey asks officers to indicate why they joined the NOPD (Table 3). A Majority of respondents report that they joined because they wanted to help make the community a safer place (68.0%) and wanted to help people (66.9%). A large portion of respondents (48.8%) also indicated they joined because they wanted to fight crime.

Table 3. Reasons to Join the NOPD It is a good paying job.

N

%

40

14.2

It is exciting.

80

28.5

I want to help the community become a safer place.

191

68.0

I want to fight crime.

137

48.8

It provides valuable career opportunities.

85

30.3

It provides job security.

95

33.8

I want to help people.

188

66.9

I want to work details.

19

6.8

It is a tradition in my family.

25

8.9

Other

18

6.4

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 16 of 129
Page 16 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Reasons to Join the NOPD

N

%

Note: Percentages represent the percentage of all survey respondents (281) that indicated they joined the NOPD for a

particular reason.

2. Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Section II asked for officer’s attitudes regarding managers and supervisors, which are remarkably consistent and positive across all items (Table 4). Regardless of the question asked, the average response was in the agree category (the mean ranged from M=3.10 to M=3.33). Additionally, agree was the most common response for all but two questions, with between 40 and 50 percent of the offices reporting they agree with the statements. For the two questions where “agree” was not the most common response, slightly more than 40 percent of the officers indicate they strongly agree. In sum, officers believe their supervisors are good leaders, are
taking the department in the right direction, and treat fellow officers fairly regardless of race,
ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

Table 4. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

9. Officers in my district treat other

officers of differing genders the same.

4 (1.4) 26 (9.3)

(M=3.24)

10. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing genders the same. (M=3.20)

4 (1.4) 31 (11.0)

11. Within NOPD officers treat other officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M=3.10)

7 (2.5) 41 (14.6)

12. Within NOPD supervisors treat officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M=3.17)

6 (2.1) 29 (10.3)

13. Officers in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same. (M=3.22)

6 (2.1) 21 (7.5)

14. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientation the same. (M=3.24)

9 (3.2) 17 (6.1)

15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work. (M=3.30)

7 (2.5) 23 (8.2)

Agree N (%) 134 (47.7)
132 (47.0)
131 (46.6)
138 (49.1)
143 (50.9)
138 (49.1)
125 (44.5)

Strongly Agree N (%) 95 (33.8) 91 (32.4) 81 (28.8)
85 (30.3)
90 (32.0)
97 (34.5)
118 (42.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 17 of 129
Page 17 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M=3.25)

6 (2.1) 28 (10.0)

Agree
N (%) 130 (46.3)

Strongly Agree N (%)
109 (38.8)

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of thinking. (M=3.12)

13 (4.6)

33 (11.7)

123 (43.8)

91 (32.4)

18. My district/division commander is trying to improve NOPD relations with the community. (M=3.33)

10 (3.6) 14 (5.0)

115 (40.9)

121 (43.1)

19. My district/division commander is a good leader. (M=3.32)

11 (3.9) 21 (7.5)

100 (35.6)

124 (44.1)

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. (M=3.22)

10 (3.6) 25 (8.9)

120 (42.7)

102 (36.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

3. Section III: Personnel and Management Systems
The previous section of the survey asked officers questions about managers within the NOPD (immediate supervisor, district/division commander, Superintendent of Police). When asked about these individuals, officers respond positively. The questions in the Personnel and Management Systems section changed direction and included questions about the NOPD as an organization without providing a specific individual to consider (Table 5). Thus, questions here are related to the previous section, in that they ask about individual’s perceptions of authority and decision-making within the NOPD, but differ in their focus on the NOPD as an organization.
The shift in focus from individual to agency resulted in lower ratings of fairness. In particular, the average response to the item “The investigation of civilian complaints is fair” fell in the disagree category (M=2.13) with a majority (58.0%) of respondents indicating they disagreed or strongly disagreed. A small majority of respondents (50.9%) also indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed that the investigation conducted by the Public Integrity Bureau were fair. The average response to items on the quality of Academy training (M=2.67), the quality of field training (M=2.79), and the fairness of the performance evaluation system (M=2.71) fell slightly to the positive side of neutral indicating that they were more positively viewed than the items on the investigation of civilian complaints and the PIB.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 18 of 129
Page 18 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

N (%)

N (%) N (%)

21a. Today, NOPD trains newly hired officers well during Academy. (M=2.67)

25 (8.9)

72 (25.6)

125 (44.5)

Strongly Agree N (%)
36 (12.8)

21b. Today, NOPD trains newly hired officers well during field training. (M=2.79)

18 (6.4)

55 (19.6)

141 (50.2)

39 (13.9)

22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M=2.71)

18 (6.4)

60 (21.4)

148 (52.7)

24 (8.5)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M=2.13)

83 (29.5)

80 (28.5)

77 (27.4)

20 (7.1)

24. The investigations that are conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair. (M=2.31)

64 (22.8)

79 (28.1)

85 (30.3)

29 (10.3)

25. If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair. (M=3.15)

11 (3.9)

17 (6.1)

150 (53.4)

76 (27.1)

26. As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action. (M=3.32)

4 (1.4)

17 (6.1)

136 (48.4)

110 (39.2)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake. (M=3.18)

12 (4.3)

44 (15.7)

99 (35.2)

116 (41.3)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M=3.17)

5 (1.8)

49 (17.4)

104 (37.0)

104 (37.0)

29. My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints. (M=2.18)

62 (22.1) 119 (42.4)

52 (18.5)

29 (10.3)

30. The civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable to the public. (M=2.47)

38 (13.5)

87 (31.0)

107 (38.1)

26 (9.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

A majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that “If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair,” (80.5%) and “As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action” (87.6%). While this suggests some amount of trust in the disciplinary system at NOPD, a majority of responses also agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, “I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake,” (76.5%) and “Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous” (74.0%). Thus, there are mixed reports about

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 19 of 129
Page 19 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

the disciplinary process. As an example of this conclusion, the average response to the item regarding civilian complaints making the NOPD accountable was neutral (M=2.47). Despite concerns about the disciplinary process, however, a majority of respondents (64.5%) indicated that they did not believe that their career had been negatively affected by civilian complaints.

4. Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

The next section of the survey asked officers for their perceptions of police-community relations in New Orleans. These questions covered a variety of topics, from the treatment of minorities to the effectiveness of youth programs. For the first series of questions (see Table 6), a number of statements about police-community relations were asked with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). For all questions in this series, a majority of officers either agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The average response was slightly to the positive side of neutral for items regarding community residents’ respect for police officers (M=2.87), the NOPD receiving more support from the community than two years ago (M=2.70), the NOPD being a better organization than two years ago (M=2.72), residents trusting the NOPD (M=2.80), and resident satisfaction with police services (M=2.70). In contrast, the average response to the items regarding interactions with civilians influencing community perceptions of the NOPD (M=3.34), law enforcement strategies positively impacting community relations (M=3.13), and youth programs improving relations (M=3.06) and reducing crime (M=3.06) were slightly higher than the agree category.

Table 6. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

31. Community residents respect

police officers in my district.

14 (5.0) 41 (14.6) 152 (54.1) 38 (13.5)

(M=2.87)

32. Generally, NOPD receives more support from the community than two years ago. (M=2.70)

10 (3.6) 78 (27.8) 111 (39.5) 30 (10.7)

33. My interactions with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD. (M=3.34)

2 (0.7) 16 (5.7) 127 (45.2) 104 (37.0)

34. Law enforcement strategies in my district positively impact relations with the community. (M=3.13)

4 (1.4) 30 (10.7) 136 (48.4) 69 (24.6)

35. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M=3.06)

11 (3.9) 36 (12.8) 108 (38.4) 72 (25.6)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 20 of 129
Page 20 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

36. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M=3.06)

12 (4.3) 37 (13.2) 114 (40.6) 75 (26.7)

38. Today, the NOPD is a better organization than it was two years ago. (M=2.72)
42. NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law. (M=3.29)
45. Residents in my district trust the NOPD. (M=2.80)
46. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services that are provided there. (M=2.70)

15 (5.3) 79 (28.1) 111 (39.5) 41 (14.6) 1 (0.4) 11 (3.9) 162 (57.7) 89 (31.7) 8 (2.9) 52 (18.5) 163 (58.0) 20 (7.1) 25 (8.9) 53 (18.9) 133 (47.3) 30 (10.7)

Very Bad

Bad

Good Very Good

37. Overall, the NOPD provides services that are: (M=3.11)

3 (1.1) 17 (6.1) 189 (67.3) 53 (18.9)

43. Overall, within the New Orleans

community, how would you

describe the quality of

5 (1.8) 37 (13.2) 183 (65.1) 35 (12.5)

relationships among differing

racial and ethnic groups? (M=2.95)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

In sum, the officers report positive attitudes and perceptions concerning the quality of policecommunity relations and improvements that NOPD has made in recent years.

To support further this conclusion, a large majority of respondents rated NOPD services as good or very good (86.2%) and rated the relationships among racial and ethnic groups in New Orleans as good or very good (77.7%). Figure 1 displays responses to the item, “The officers in my district/division treat individuals the same regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation.” By far the most common response to this statement was always, indicating a belief that NOPD officers treat individuals equitably regardless of race.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 21 of 129 Page 21 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 1

The responses in Table 7 further explore officers’ perceptions of the NOPD’s treatment of minorities. Almost 13% (12.8%) of officers believe that NOPD officers treated blacks/AfricanAmericans unfairly. However, all other groups listed in the survey were believed to be treated unfairly by approximately 5% of respondents or less.

Table 7. Treatment of Minorities

Do NOPD officers treat any of the following groups unfairly?

N

%

Blacks/African-Americans

36

12.8

Bisexuals

4

1.4

Gay Men

14

5.0

Latinos/Latinas/Hispanics

10

3.6

Lesbian Women

6

2.1

Transgender Individuals

15

5.3

Vietnamese

2

0.7

Women

8

2.9

Note: Percentages represent the percentage of all survey respondents (281) that indicated NOPD officers treat a

particular group unfairly.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 22 of 129
Page 22 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Finally, Table 8 presents two questions related to overall perceptions of the NOPD’s relationship with the community. A majority of respondents (59.7%) believe relations between the NOPD and the community in which they work are positive or very positive. However, officers most commonly indicate that compared to two years ago, relationships in their community were about the same (40.6%).

Table 8. Officer Ratings of Community Relations

Very Negative

Negative Neither Positive

Very Positive

N (%)

N (%) N (%) N (%)

N (%)

Today, relations between the NOPD police and the community where I work are: (M=3.69)

4 (1.4)

10 (3.6)

85 (30.3)

135 (48.0)

33 (11.7)

Much Worse

Worse

About the Same

Better

Much Better

Compared to two years ago, the

relations between the NOPD and the community where I work are:

5 (1.8)

18 (6.4)

114 (40.6)

80 (28.5) 31 (11.0)

(M=3.46)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

5. Section V: Expectations about the Police Role
Section V examines officers’ expectations toward the functions they should perform. Officers were asked to rate the importance of 25 activities on a scale from 1 (Not Important) to 4 (Very Important). The average response and distribution of responses is displayed in Table 9. All functions were rated as being relatively important with average responses above the midpoint in the scale (2.5). The not important category never received more than 10% of the responses. Testifying in court (M=3.61), obtaining statements from witnesses (M=3.65), working with the community to make neighborhoods safer (M=3.69), responding to calls for service (M=3.62), talking to civilians to help identify problems (M=3.59), dealing with street crime (M=3.62), completing criminal offense reports (M=3.62), the legality/constitutionality of stops and searches (M=3.65), patrolling the streets (M=3.64), and general patrol duties (M=3.60), all had average responses closer to very important than important. The activities considered to be of least importance were conducting foot patrol (M=2.82), issuing traffic tickets (M=2.79), and dealing with noisy parties (M=2.44).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 23 of 129
Page 23 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not Important

Not So Important

Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

47. Testifying in court (M=3.61)

1 (0.4)

19 (6.8)

66 (23.5)

48. Handling drunk driving offenders (M=3.49)

2 (0.7)

19 (6.8)

94 (33.5)

49. Obtaining statements from witnesses (M=3.65)

0 (0.0)

5 (1.8)

86 (30.6)

50. Making arrests (M=3.28)

2 (0.7)

40 (14.2)

109 (38.8)

51. Dealing with domestic disputes (M=3.37)

3 (1.1)

30 (10.7)

98 (34.9)

52. Working with the community to make neighborhoods safer (M=3.69)

1 (0.4)

8 (2.9)

64 (22.8)

53. Responding to calls for service (M=3.62)

1 (0.4)

3 (1.1)

93 (33.1)

54. Talking to civilians to help identify problems (M=3.59)

1 (0.4)

9 (3.2)

90 (32.0)

55. Dealing with street crime (M=3.62)

2 (0.7)

9 (3.2)

80 (28.5)

56. Completing criminal offense reports (M=3.62)

1 (0.4)

3 (1.1)

93 (33.1)

57. Conducting foot patrol (M=2.82)

20 (7.1)

75 (26.7)

102 (36.3)

58. Providing crime prevention education to the public (M=3.34)

4 (1.4)

26 (9.3)

112 (39.9)

59. Working with juveniles (M=3.33)

4 (1.4)

33 (11.7)

101 (35.9)

60. Conducting drug raids (M=3.07)

6 (2.1)

57 (20.3)

115 (40.9)

61. Maintaining crowd control (M=3.32) 7 (2.5)

22 (7.8)

118 (42.0)

62. Stopping and searching suspects (M=3.12)

6 (2.1)

41 (14.6)

134 (47.7)

63. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches (M=3.65)

1 (0.4)

6 (2.1)

78 (27.8)

64. Patrolling the streets (M=3.64)

1 (0.4)

2 (0.7)

91 (32.4)

65. General patrol duties (M=3.60)

1 (0.4)

2 (0.7)

100 (35.6)

66. General traffic duties (M=3.32)

3 (1.1)

25 (8.9)

122 (43.4)

67. Controlling traffic (M=3.15)

4 (1.4)

49 (17.4)

117 (41.6)

68. Issuing traffic tickets (M=2.79)

10 (3.6)

93 (33.1)

104 (37.0)

69. Handling neighborhood disputes (M=3.27)

3 (1.1)

28 (10.0) 128 (45.6)

Very Important
N (%)
185 (65.8) 155 (55.2)
180 (64.1) 119 (42.4) 135 (48.0)
199 (70.8)
173 (61.6)
170 (60.5) 180 (64.1) 170 (60.5) 67 (23.8) 125 (44.5) 129 (45.9) 89 (31.7) 121 (43.1) 84 (29.9)
183 (65.1) 175 (62.3) 165 (58.7) 118 (42.0) 96 (34.2) 57 (20.3)
104 (37.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 24 of 129
Page 24 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not Important

Not So Important

Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

70. Controlling crowds at public events (M=3.46)

4 (1.4)

17 (6.1)

95 (33.8)

Very Important
N (%)
147 (52.3)

71. Dealing with noisy parties (M=2.44) 21 (7.5)

138 (49.1)

75 (26.7) 32 (11.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

6. Section VI: The Police Department and the Public
The final section of the survey asked police officers for their perceptions of the public. Responses to the first 11 questions in this section were on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Not Sure), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). For these items, the middle category was labeled as “Not Sure.” Substantively, “Not Sure” could fall in between 2 (Disagree) and 4 (Agree), but it could also be an indicator that the individual has no opinion and should not be included on the 1 to 5 scale. Indications of this can be found in responses to items 72, 75, 80, and 81 (among others) where the categories on either side of “Not Sure” have more responses than “Not Sure,” creating a bi-modal distribution.2 A strongly disagree to strongly agree scale typically has a smoother distribution with frequencies decreasing in order further away from the most common response category. This is the case with all of the other items of this style in this report. Still, for purposes of calculating the mean, “Not Sure” was treated as the neutral category (3) because that is where it was placed in relation to the other categories on the surveys distributed to officers. Thus, some participants may have thought of it as a middle category.
Responses to these questions are relatively neutral, with the mean being closest to the “Not Sure” category for all but one item (Table 10). For that item, an overwhelming majority of respondents (85.4%) indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that, “Residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face.” A majority of respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that people in society would harm cops given the opportunity (53.1%). A majority of respondents (54.8%) also disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything.”

2

A bi-modal distribution is a graphical distribution of responses with two peaks, as opposed to the more

typical single peak.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 25 of 129
Page 25 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 10. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure

Agree

N (%)

N (%) N (%) N (%)

72. People in society will harm you as a cop, if you give them the opportunity. (M=3.46)

9 (3.2)

62 (22.1)

49 (17.4)

95 (33.9)

Strongly Agree N (%)
54 (19.2)

73. Most people are honest. (M=3.10)

17 (6.1)

62 (22.1)

81 (28.8)

98 (34.9)

13 (4.6)

74. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer that needs assistance. (M=3.30)

11 (3.9)

36 (12.8)

99 (35.2)

108 (38.4)

16 (5.7)

75. In general, you should be suspicious of people. (M=3.24)

9 (3.2)

80 (28.5)

45 (16.0)

101 (35.9)

30 (10.7)

76. The community shows a lot of respect for the NOPD police. (M=3.04)

16 (5.7)

73 (26.0)

68 (24.2)

103 (36.7)

6 (2.1)

77. Residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face. (M=4.30)

5 (1.8)

7 (2.5)

17 (6.1)

113 (40.2)

127 (45.2)

78. Many residents try to make NOPD officers look bad. (M=3.18)

4 (1.4)

79 (28.1)

72 (25.6)

90 (32.0)

23 (8.2)

79. Most civilians have confidence in NOPD police. (M=3.19)

10 (3.6)

48 (17.1)

102 (36.3)

97 (34.5)

10 (3.6)

80. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything. (M=2.68)

33 (11.7) 121 (43.1)

31 (11.0)

61 (21.7)

20 (7.1)

81. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them. (M=3.15)

6 (2.1)

95 (33.8)

54 (19.2)

76 (27.1)

36 (12.8)

82. NOPD officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much. (M=3.40)

8 (2.9)

53 (18.9)

59 (21.0)

73 (26.0)

46 (16.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 26 of 129
Page 26 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The final series of questions ask more questions about the officer’s perceptions of the NOPD as an organization (Table 11). Responses to these questions are on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).

Table 11. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public (continued)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

83. Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job. (M=3.17)

8 (2.9)

42 (15.0)

118 (42.0)

105 (37.4)

84. Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on “who you know.” (M=3.05)

9 (3.2) 64 (22.8) 99 (35.2) 95 (33.8)

85. If you make a mistake, NOPD will give you a second chance. (M=2.39)

32 (11.4) 104 (37.0)

109 (38.8)

11 (3.9)

86. Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD. (M=2.64)

27 (9.6)

76 (27.1)

124 (44.1)

36 (12.8)

87. NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M=3.25)

6 (2.1)

37 (13.2)

103 (36.7)

113 (40.2)

88. In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly. (M=1.98)

97 (34.5) 93 (33.1) 56 (19.9) 18 (6.4)

89. The media is interested in stories

about the NOPD only when an officer

12 (4.3) 30 (10.7) 73 (26.0) 155 (55.2)

gets in trouble. (M=3.37)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

As noted above, responses to these questions tend to show relatively cynical opinions toward the assignment and incentive structures within the NOPD, as well as cynical attitudes about the way the media cover NOPD. The average responses to the statements, “Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job,” (M=3.17), “Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on ‘who you know’,” (M=3.05), “NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere,” (M=3.25), and “The media is interested in stories about the NOPD only when an officer gets in trouble,” (M=3.37) all were closest to the agree category. Additionally, a majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the news media treat NOPD officers fairly (67.6%).

C. Police Officer Survey Comparisons (2014 – 2016)

1. Executive Summary

As described above, the Monitoring Team surveyed NOPD officers in 2014 and 2016, as required by the Consent Decree. For the current survey, some modifications were made to questions in order to clarify terms, simplify questions, and refine terms (for example,

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 27 of 129 Page 27 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
differentiating between “police officers” and “NOPD officers”). The majority of the questions asked in 2014 and 2016 were similar even with those minor changes. This report provides an opportunity to examine differences and similarities in officer attitudes and perceptions between the two-time periods. The 2016 survey was answered by a smaller number of officers and, as a result, there were sizeable differences on a number of key demographics, including gender and years of experience, which should be considered comparing the two survey results. Our analyses were split into six sections measuring different aspects of policing. Listed below are the sections and the major findings.
Section I: Police Work and Your Working Environment
 Improved perceptions of the NOPD’s working environment
Section II: Managers and Supervisors
 Improved perceptions of equality within the NOPD and higher evaluations of command staff.
 Officers are more likely to rate the Superintendent of Police as “leading us in the right direction.”
Section III: Personnel and Management Systems
 Improved perceptions of fairness in NOPD discipline and investigations of wrongdoing
 A decrease in officer cynicism regarding civilian complaints
Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations
 Items in this Section IV varied in their topics but were found to cover four areas, all of which saw significant improvement:
o Perceived effectiveness of NOPD services
o Officer buy-in to youth programs
o Perceived respect/trust in the NOPD
o Citizens’ perceived fairness of the NOPD
Section V: Expectations about the Police Role
 The importance of police functions were roughly equivalent across both surveys
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 28 of 129
Page 28 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

 Improved perceptions of the fairness of NOPD personnel decisions

 An improvement in attitudes towards the public

2. Police Officer Survey Comparison: Introduction

The surveys of NOPD officers conducted in 2014 and 2016 had a number of comparable questions that allow the officer attitudes to be examined between the two time periods. While the results indicate a number of similarities on important attitudes, there were also some key differences in the responses. Before discussing the results, it’s important to explain who took the surveys. First, 449 officers completed the survey in 2014 while 281 officers completed it in 2016. Second, two-thirds of participants in the 2014 survey were male, while roughly half of participants were male in the 2016 survey. The racial/ethnic make-up of both surveys was very similar and both surveys had individuals at the rank of police officer make up slightly less than half of the respondents. Finally, while the average age of participants was very similar at just over 40 years old, the average number of years of experience decreased from just over 16 years as a police officer in 2014 to just under 13 years in 2016.

Table 1. Demographic Comparisons

2014 Percentage

Gender

Male

66.4

Female

12.0

Race

White

26.7

Black

33.2

Latino/Hispanic

0.9

Other

6.0

New Orleans Resident

Yes

51.9

No

32.3

Rank

Police Officer

44.1

Detective

12.5

Sergeant

13.1

Lieutenant/Captain

6.2

Commander/Other

3.1

Age (Mean)

43.7

Years of Experience (Mean)

16.4

2016 Percentage
53.0 20.6
23.5 35.6 2.1 7.5
50.5 32.7
49.8 10.0 15.7
5.0 0.4 41.2 12.8

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 29 of 129
Page 29 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographic Comparisons
2014 Percentage
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values.

2016 Percentage

In sum, there were fewer participants in the 2016 survey, a smaller percentage of them were male, and on average they had less experience than the officers who completed the survey in 2014. While these differences do not prevent comparisons between the survey results, they may explain some differences in the results of the surveys.

3. Section I: Police Work and Your Working Environment

The first section of both surveys asked NOPD officers for their perceptions of their working environment. Items were asked on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) with the exception of item 8 which was on a scale from 1 (Very Bad) to 4 (Very Good). The items were not exactly the same across both surveys, but were very similar. Appendix B contains the original distribution of responses to these questions from 2014 and 2016, while Table 2 presents the average (“M”) response to the items. The average response provides a more concise method of comparison given the large difference in sample sizes from 2014 to 2016. All seven items were coded such that higher values represented a better working environment and each item had a higher average response in 2016 than in 2014. This suggests that respondents to the 2016 survey had better perceptions of their working environment than did the respondents to the 2014 survey.3

Table 2. Average Responses to Section I: “Police Work and Your Working Environment

2014 Average 2016 Average

(“M”)

(“M”)

1. Citizens in my district treat me with respect.

2.75

3.05

2. In my District, my fellow officers treat me with respect.

3.36

3.45

3. In my District, my supervisors treat me with respect.

3.24

3.43

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment.

2.50

3.08

5. I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively.

2.49

3.03

3

To further reinforce this finding, a scale was constructed to represent perceptions of the working

environment using regression scores from exploratory factor analysis. The t-test method can be used to

compare variables for two independent groups. For example, this method may be used to “test” whether

perceptions differ between officers. A t-test comparing the scale scores revealed significant differences

between 2014 and 2016 with 2016 having higher scores than 2014, t(503.58)=-10.07, p<0.01.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 30 of 129
Page 30 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Average Responses to Section I: “Police Work and Your Working Environment

2014 Average 2016 Average

(“M”)

(“M”)

6. I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively.

1.87

2.46

8. Overall, within the NOPD, how would you describe the

quality of relationships among differing racial and ethnic

2.86

3.13

groups?

Note: The items were not exactly the same between 2014 and 2016 but were close enough for comparison. The items presented here reflect the 2016 wording of the items.

4. Section II: Managers and Supervisors
Section II asked respondents a series of questions about their perceptions of their managers and supervisors. As with Section I, the distribution of items for 2014 and 2016 are presented in Appendix B and the average responses are offered in Table 3. Responses to this section were on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). All items were worded in such a manner that higher scores represented more positive perceptions of officers’ managers and supervisors. All items except for item 16 (I consistently work with the same supervisor) had higher average scores in 2016. Item 16 had roughly equivalent average scores in 2014 and 2016.
To get a clearer picture of differences in officer perceptions in 2014 and 2016, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the items in Section II. This type of statistical analysis is used to identify if relationships exist between various variables, or factors.4 The first factor represented perceptions of equality within the NOPD and included items 9 through 14. The second factor represented perceptions of NOPD command staff and consisted of items 17 through 19. Items 15 and 16 dealt largely with procedural issues (consistent feedback, working with the same supervisor) and had small increases in perceptions from 2014 to 2016. Item 20 asked for perceptions of the Superintendent of Police and had the largest difference in perceptions from 2014 to 2016. Regression scores were computed for the two factors identified in the EFA. These scores provide comparisons between groups on different items on the survey. T-tests of the difference between scores in 2014 and 2016 revealed significant differences in perceptions of equality within the NOPD,5 and perceptions of NOPD command staff.6 For both factors, 2016 participants had higher scores representing more positive perceptions of managers and supervisors.

4

EFA is a statistical method utilized for examining patterns and relationships across items and respondents

in data sets. The analysis revealed an overall shift in attitudes of 2016 respondents relative to 2014 on two

factors. For both factors, 2016 participants had higher scores representing more positive perceptions of

managers and supervisors.

5

t(511.45)=-8.69, p<0.01

6

t(515.40)=-5.94, p<0.01

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 31 of 129
Page 31 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Average Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

9. Officers in my district treat other officers of differing genders the same.
10. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing genders the same.
11. Within NOPD, officers treat other officers of differing race/ethnicity the same.
12. Within NOPD, supervisors treat officers of differing race/ethnicity the same.
13. Officers in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same.
14. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same.
15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work.

2014 Average 2.79 2.62 2.79 2.68 2.87 2.85 2.97

2016 Average 3.24 3.20 3.10 3.17 3.22 3.24 3.30

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor.

3.24

3.25

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of thinking.

2.87

3.12

18. My district/division commander is trying to improve NOPD relations with the community.

2.91

3.33

19. My district/division commander is a good leader.

3.04

3.32

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction.

1.73

3.22

Note: The items were not exactly the same between 2014 and 2016 but were close enough for comparison. The items

presented here reflect the 2016 wording of the items.

5. Section III: Personnel and Management Systems
The third section asked respondents a series of questions regarding their perceptions of personnel and management systems. Responses to this section were scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The distribution of responses for both years can be found in Appendix B, while the average scores can be found in Table 4. Items regarding the fairness of the performance evaluation system, the investigation of civilian complaints, investigations conducted by the PIB, discipline delivered by commanders, and clear expectations for punishment had higher average responses in 2016. Other items regarding civilian complaints and being punished for making an honest mistake had similar average scores in 2014 and 2016.
An EFA was conducted on the items in Section III to create scale scores of perceptions of personnel and management systems. The EFA resulted in two factors. The first included items 22 to 26 and measured the fairness of NOPD discipline and investigations. The second factor

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 32 of 129
Page 32 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

included items 27 to 29 and examined officer cynicism regarding civilian complaints. Item 30 did not load on either factor and the average score was relatively stable across the two surveys. Using the scale scores computed from the EFA, t-tests were conducted to determine the extent to which perceptions of these factors changed from 2014 to 2016. The perceived fairness of NOPD discipline and investigations significantly increased in 2016.7 Officer cynicism regarding civilian complaints decreased slightly from 2014 to 2016.

Table 4. Average Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

2014 Average 2016 Average

22. The performance evaluation system is fair.

2.25

2.71

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair.

1.85

2.13

24. The investigations that are conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair.

1.86

2.31

25. If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair.

2.88

3.15

26. As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action.

3.06

3.32

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake.

3.20

3.18

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous.

3.12

3.17

29. My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints.

2.19

2.18

30. The civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable to the public.

2.41

2.47

Note: The items were not exactly the same between 2014 and 2016 but were close enough for comparison. The items presented here reflect the 2016 wording of the items.

6. Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Section IV asked officers questions regarding their attitudes towards community policing and perceptions of the NOPD’s relationship with the New Orleans community. Responses to items in this section were on a scale from 1 to 4 but varied in the labels for each scale. Most of the items were scored from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Item 37 was scaled from very bad to very good in 2016 and from poor to excellent in 2014. Item 43 was scaled from very bad to very good in 2016 and from very badly to very well in 2014. The average response to each item is included in Table 5, and the original distribution of responses is presented in Appendix B. Item 34 was worded in the opposite direction in 2014 and so is reverse coded in Table 5. Responses to each of the items presented in the table show improvements for the NOPD with the exception of item 33 which remained relatively stable.

7

t(479.31)=-6.29, p<0.01

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 33 of 129
Page 33 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

As with the other sections, EFA was run on the items in Section IV. The EFA revealed the presence of four factors represented by two items each. Items 33, 34, and 43 did not load on any factors and are best examined as independent items. Item 33 measuring the perceived ability of officers to alter citizen perceptions remained relatively stable across the two surveys. Item 34, which examined the perceived ability of law enforcement strategies to impact community relations increased in 2016. It should be noted, however, that this item was worded differently in 2014 and 2016. In the baseline survey, the prompt stated, “Law enforcement strategies in my district “negatively” impact relations with the community.” In the 2016 follow up survey, the item is framed using “positively.” Item 43 asked officers for their perceptions of racial/ethnic relations in New Orleans, and showed a small increase in 2016.

With regard to the four scale scores created by the EFA, the first factor measured the effectiveness of police services and was represented by items 37 & 46. The second factor measured buy-in to youth programs and was represented by items 35 & 36. The third factor measured perceived respect/trust in the NOPD and was represented by items 31 & 45. Finally, the fourth factor measured perceived fairness of NOPD and was represented by items 39 & 42. T-tests of each factor showed significant positive increases in 2016.8

Table 5. Average Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

31. Community residents respect police officers in my district.
33. My interactions with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD.
34. Law enforcement strategies in my district positively impact relations with the community.
35. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work.
36. Youth programs help reduce crime.
37. Overall, the NOPD provides services that are: (Very Bad/Very Good)
39. The officers in my district/division treat individuals the same regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation.

2014 Average (“M”)
2.61 3.38
2.78
2.61 2.82 2.20
3.12

2016 Average (“M”)
2.87 3.34
3.13
3.06 3.06 3.11
3.37

8

First factor t-test: t(440.02)=-10.58, p<0.01

Second factor t-test: t(483.97)=-6.86, p<0.01

Third factor t-test: t(443.57)=-7.75, p<0.01

Fourth factor t-test: t(452.20)=-9.65, p<0.01

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 34 of 129
Page 34 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Average Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

42. NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law.
45. Residents in my district trust the NOPD.

2014 Average 2016 Average

(“M”)

(“M”)

3.07

3.29

2.45

2.80

46. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services that are provided there.

2.17

2.70

43. Overall, within the New Orleans community, how would

you describe the quality of relationships among differing racial 2.67

2.95

and ethnic groups?

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2016. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2016. Item 34 was asked in the opposite direction in 2014. It was reverse coded for the mean presented in this table.

7. Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

The fifth section of the officer survey asked the officer to indicate how important a number of different duties were to the officer. In 2014 these items were asked on a scale from 1 (Not Important at All) to 5 (Very Important), while in 2016 these items were asked on a scale from 1 (Not Important) to 4 (Very Important). To compare the average responses (Table 6), scores to the 2014 survey were converted to a 4-point scale. This conversion provides the opportunity for rough comparisons and is utilized in other sections, however, the averages presented in Table 6 are very similar across years. As a result, in this section, no strong conclusions can be drawn regarding whether officer perceptions changed in either direction.

Table 6. Average Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

47. Testifying in court 48. Handling drunk driving offenders 49. Obtaining statements from witnesses 50. Making arrests 51. Dealing with domestic disputes 52. Working with the community to make neighborhoods safer 53. Responding to calls for service

2014 Average (“M”)
3.56 3.74 3.28 3.43 3.66 3.66

2016 Average (“M”)
3.61 3.49 3.65 3.28 3.37 3.69 3.62

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 35 of 129
Page 35 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Average Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

54. Talking to civilians to help identify problems 55. Dealing with street crime 56. Completing criminal offense reports 57. Conducting foot patrol 58. Providing crime prevention education to the public 59. Working with juveniles 60. Conducting drug raids 61. Maintaining crowd control 62. Stopping and searching suspects 63. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches 64. Patrolling the streets 65. General patrol duties 66. General traffic duties 67. Controlling traffic 68. Issuing traffic tickets 69. Handling neighborhood disputes 70. Controlling crowds at public events 71. Dealing with noisy parties

2014 Average (“M”)
3.70 3.71 3.58 2.84 3.34 3.40 3.33 3.42 3.20 3.69 3.66 3.58 3.14 3.08 2.78 3.33 3.49 2.67

2016 Average (“M”)
3.59 3.62 3.62 2.82 3.34 3.33 3.07 3.32 3.12 3.65 3.64 3.60 3.32 3.15 2.79 3.27 3.46 2.44

Note: 2014 questions were asked on a 5-point scale. 2016 questions were asked on a 4-point scale.

8. Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

The last section on the survey asked officers for their perceptions of the public and its perceptions of police officers. Items 72 to 82 were asked on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) in both 2014 and 2016. In contrast, items 83 to 89 were asked on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) in 2016, but on the same 5-point scale as items 72 to 82 in 2014. Table 7 presents the average response to each item with 2016 responses to items 83 to 89 converted to a 4-point scale.

An EFA was conducted on the responses to Section VI to determine the extent to which perceptions changed from 2014 to 2016. The EFA revealed two factors present in this section. The first factor covered items 72 to 76 and 78 to 81 and measured attitudes toward the public.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 36 of 129
Page 36 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The second factor covered items 82 to 86 and measured perceptions of fairness in NOPD personnel decisions. Items 77, 87, 88, and 89 were not included because they either did not load on a factor or were not consistent in content with the other items in the factor. Item 77 asked officers to indicate their agreement with the statement “residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face” and was relatively stable from 2014 to 2016. Item 87 asked for officer perceptions of politician interference in law enforcement function and was also stable from 2014 to 2016. Items 88 and 89 examined officer perceptions of the media. Both items indicated improvements in officer perceptions of the media.9

Table 7. Average Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

72. People in society will harm you as a cop, if you give them the opportunity.
73. Most people are honest.
74. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer that needs assistance.
75. In general, you should be suspicious of people.
76. The community shows a lot of respect for the NOPD police.
77. Residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face.
78. Many residents try to make NOPD officers look bad.
79. Most civilians have confidence in NOPD police.
80. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything.
81. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them.
82. NOPD officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much.
83. Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job.1

2014 Average 2016 Average

(“M”)

(“M”)

3.22

3.46

3.18

3.10

3.11

3.30

3.19

3.24

2.68

3.04

4.36

4.30

3.45

3.18

3.06

3.19

2.66

2.68

3.48

3.15

3.70

3.40

4.25

3.80

9

T-tests were conducted on the scale scores created by the EFA and revealed a non-significant difference in

attitudes towards the public, t(433.45)=1.86, p=0.06, with 2016 having slightly improved attitudes. There

was a significant difference in perceptions of fairness in NOPD personnel decisions, t(482.81)=-6.30,

p<0.01, such that officers believed the NOPD to be a more fair department in 2016 than it was in 2014.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 37 of 129
Page 37 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Average Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

84. Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on who you know.1 85. If you make a mistake, NOPD will give you a second chance.1 86. Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD.1 87. NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere.1 88. In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly.1 89. The media is interested in stories about the NOPD only when an officer gets in trouble.1

2014 Average 2016 Average

(“M”)

(“M”)

3.96

3.66

2.33

2.87

2.70

3.17

3.96

3.90

1.74

2.38

4.49

4.04

Note: The wording for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2016. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparison by researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wording in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2016.
1Item was on a 4-point scale in 2016, but a 5-point scale in 2014. To be consistent with the rest of the table 2016 items are converted to a 5-point scale.

9. Conclusion

The importance of improvements in officer attitudes and beliefs is a necessary step in making changes in officer behavior. Improved officer perceptions about best practices in policing can ensure the sustainability of changes in the Department after the Consent Decree Monitors leave. This report shows positive indicators that officer attitudes and perceptions have improved over the past two years. Specifically, officers indicated improvements in the perception of fairness of their own practices, and reduced cynicism towards citizen complaints.10

10

DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for

the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1-11.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 38 of 129
Page 38 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VII. DETAINEE SURVEY
A. Executive Summary
The Monitoring Team surveyed suspects detained by New Orleans Police Department officers in December 2016. The survey collected data from 74 individuals who were interviewed and asked to answer questions from a prepared survey. Participants in the survey had demographic characteristics that would be expected of a sample of offenders.11 Detainees rated NOPD officers as relatively neutral on a variety of domains including treating suspects with respect, politeness, and listening to them. In contrast, detainees rated NOPD officers negatively on issues of trustworthiness and detainees’ confidence in the officers. These negative ratings were consistent when questions of trustworthiness and confidence were asked using different methods. Similar to the detainee ratings of officers, their ratings of the NOPD as an agency also had negative ratings for trustworthiness and detainees’ confidence in the police department.
Detainees also felt the NOPD’s professionalism, community relations, respectfulness, and treatment of minorities had not changed over the past 2 years. In rating the NOPD’s use of force, a majority of respondents (60.3%) felt that use of force had increased in recent years and a majority (56.2%) felt that NOPD officers routinely used excessive force. Detainees also did not rate the NOPD highly on their treatment of minorities. On average, respondents did not believe that the NOPD treated the black community or Latino community fairly and a majority (56.1%) agreed that NOPD officers engage in racial profiling.
When answering questions regarding the arrest that led to their present detention, participants had slightly negative ratings toward police officers explaining the reason they stopped the participant and police officers giving participants a chance to explain themselves. These slight negative ratings are particularly important to the NOPD because they represent the concept of procedural justice, which has been shown to improve trust in law enforcement agencies.12 As noted above, trust in the NOPD and its officers was low among the participants of the survey.
Participants were neutral in their willingness to contact the NOPD in the future regarding suspicious behavior or crimes that they witnessed. Furthermore, a simple bivariate correlation demonstrated that these ratings were related to perceptions of the NOPD, suggesting that improving perceptions of the NOPD could improve the community’s willingness to contact the NOPD regarding criminal behavior. This approach looks for relationships between ratings. For example, there may be a relationship between how one may perceive the NOPD and how one may react to witnessing criminal activity.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind our survey measures perceptions – not facts. For example, a detainee’s view of NOPD conduct may or may not reflect the reality of that conduct.

11

The sample population is comprised as follows: Black: 69.01%, White: 19.72%, Latino/Hispanic: 4.23%, &

Other: 7.04%

12

Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 39 of 129
Page 39 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Any number of factors could affect the detainee’s response. Understanding a detainee’s perception, however – just like understanding an officer’s perception and a citizen’s perception – is an important component of the survey project. Measuring changes in perception over time gives the Monitoring Team and the NOPD an additional data element with which to assess the effectiveness of the various requirements of the Consent Decree. Additionally, identifying perceived problems allows the Monitoring Team to focus its resources to determine whether the perceptions equate with reality.
1. Survey Results
Data for this report come from surveys of a population of 74 individuals detained by the NOPD. All detainees arriving or present in holding for processing at the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office Jail during the evening period of time between 5:30 pm-1:30 am on Tuesday, December 6th through Saturday, December 11, 2016 were asked to participate in a survey interview. A qualitative design with structured interviews was chosen for this study, since it has potential to reveal in-depth knowledge of complex aspects of a sensitive topic where little is known.13
2. Recruitment and participants
Community members and members of the Mentoring Team recruited participants for the 2016 Detainee Survey from the holding area of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office Jail. When a NOPD officer would bring an arrestee to the jail, he or she was approached by a trained interviewer and asked to participate in a survey interview. The selection criteria for participating in the survey were (i) being arrested by an NOPD officer (subjects brought in by state patrol or another parish, for example, were ineligible), (ii) presence in the holding area during data collection (Tuesday-Sunday, 5:30pm-~1am), and (iii) English-speaking. We approached all NOPD detainees, in custody in the OPSO holding area during data collection. There were 80 detainees asked to participate, four declined (3 who were on heroin and one other refusal), and two were excluded as they did not speak English. We ended up with 74 successful interviews.
3. Interviews
The interviews were conducted in private cells within the holding area while the detainees awaited further processing by the jail staff. The interviewers explained the reason and goals of the interview, as well as confidentiality and that participation was voluntary. Each interview team included one trained community member who would read the questions, another who would record answers on a paper form. Each interview was observed/supervised by a member of the Monitoring Team. The style of the interviews was conversational but standardized. The subjects were asked to reflect on their perceptions of NOPD and NOPD officers, as well as their experience being arrested by NOPD. The interviewers were male and female, white and black community members, aged 21-65, specially trained for and experienced in qualitative research

13

See Oakes 2009.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 40 of 129
Page 40 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

for interviewing on sensitive topics. The interviews were conducted in English and lasted between 10 and 25 minutes.
The individuals agreeing to participate in the survey were asked a variety of questions about their perceptions of the NOPD, their perceptions of NOPD officers, and their perceptions of the arrest that led to their present detention. A similar survey of detainees was conducted in 2014. Prior to examining the perceptions of the detainees, it is important to examine the individual characteristics of those providing the information.
4. Demographic Characteristics
Table 1 presents information on the demographic characteristics of the 74 participants. The vast majority of the participants were male with only 11 females participating (15.1%). Additionally, the majority of respondents (49, 67.1%) were black with the next highest number of respondents were white (14, 19.2%). Most participants reported being a resident of the city of New Orleans (59, 80.8%) with the average resident reporting living in New Orleans for 19.2 years. Only two respondents (2.7%) identified as belonging to the LGBT community and almost all of the participants (68, 93.2%) spoke English. It should be noted that detainees identified as not speaking English did communicate with our team, but stated they preferred a second language. When the team offered language support, however, the respondents preferred not to participate; therefore, these two incomplete surveys were discarded and both noted as a refusal.
Table 1. Respondent Demographic Characteristics

N

%

Gender Male Female

57

78.1

11

15.1

Race

White

14

19.2

Black

49

67.1

Latino/Hispanic

3

4.1

Other

5

6.8

New Orleans Resident How long?

59

80.8

Mean=19.2 years

Identify as LGBT

2

2.7

Speak English

68

93.2

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 41 of 129
Page 41 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Most of the demographic characteristics of this sample reflect what would be expected from a sample of individuals detained by the police. For example, arrest data routinely demonstrates that males are arrested more frequently than females.14 The findings with respect to age, however, are somewhat more surprising. The average age of respondents to this survey was 33 years. This figure is slightly misleading as these data, as is typical with most data on arrestees, have a right skew.15 To account for this skew a density curve16 of the age of the detainees included in this survey is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen by the line in the figure, right skew is apparent with most responses concentrated around the mid to late 20s. The traditional agecrime curve that would be expected by criminologists has a much sharper peak that occurs earlier – usually around age 20.17
Figure 1. Age of Detainee

14

Data from the FBI’s 2015 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) indicate that, nationally, roughly 73% of arrests

reported in the UCR were of male offenders. This number closely mirrors the 78% reported here.

15

Right skew means most of the data are concentrated around the lower end of the range of responses with

some responses much higher than the rest of the data. As a result of this distribution, averages will not

reflect the area of concentration and will be higher than expected.

16

A density curve is a computer-generated line that reflects the concentration of respondents across the range

of reported responses.

17

See Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 42 of 129
Page 42 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

It is important to note this distinction prior to discussing the results of the substantive questions as it has been suggested that age plays an important role in individuals’ perceptions of the police.18
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate how much contact they had with the NOPD in the last 6 months and the last 2 years. Figures showing the distribution of the amount of contact can be found in Appendix C. Regarding being stopped by the NOPD, survey participants were most likely to respond that they had been stopped once in the past 6 months and twice in the past two years. For previous arrests, participants were most likely to indicate they had been arrested once regardless of the time frame. Importantly, these figures indicate that the respondents in our survey had previous contact with the NOPD.
B. Detainee Survey Analysis
1. General Attitudes toward NOPD Officers
The survey of these detainees focused on understanding their perceptions of police officers. Specifically, the survey asked detainees to indicate their level of agreement with a number of statements regarding their perceptions of NOPD officers. Responses to these items are summarized in Table 2. Statements were scored on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). By assigning numerical values to each response category it is possible to estimate an average rating for each statement. For example, with regards to the first statement, on average survey respondents gave a score of 2.99 to the statement: “Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way.” Given that 3 was the rating for the “Neither Agree/Disagree” category, it can then be stated that on average survey respondents fell into the neutral “Neither Agree/Disagree” category regarding the statement on NOPD officers doing their jobs the right way.
Almost 36% of respondents disagreed with the statement that they were satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle themselves. The average rating for the item fell slightly below the neutral category. Interestingly, the average rating for the statement, “When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with respect” was slightly above the neutral category as nearly 40% of respondents agreed with the statement. For the items “When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite” and “In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the general public” the average rating fell slightly below the neutral category with between 30 and 40% of respondents disagreeing with the statements. Somewhat more negative ratings were seen for the statements “Generally, NOPD officers listen to me,” “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me,” and “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.” For each of these statements, the percentage of respondents disagreeing with the statement approached a majority as 49.3%, 46.5%, and 46.5% of respondents fell in the “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” for each of the

18

See Fagan & Tyler, 2005. Younger individuals likely have more frequent contact with the police than older

people and may perceive officers in different ways than the slightly older group whose attitudes are

reported here.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 43 of 129 Page 43 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com three items, respectively. For the item “I have confidence in NOPD officers,” a majority of respondents (58.9%) indicated that they either disagreed or strongly disagreed and the average rating fell closer to the “Disagree” category than the neutral category. However, the lowest ratings were found for the item “I trust NOPD officers.” 69.9% of survey participants either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement and the average rating (2.04) was in the “Disagree” category.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 44 of 129
Page 44 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Detainees’ attitudes toward NOPD officers

Response categories:
1. Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way. (M=2.99, N=73)

Strongly Disagree
(1)
N (%)

Disagree (2)
N (%)

Neither Agree/ Disagree
(3)
N (%)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree (5)

N (%) N (%)

11 (15.1) 10 (13.7) 25 (34.2) 23 (31.5) 4 (5.5)

2. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle themselves. (M=2.94, N=72)

10 (13.7) 16 (21.9) 20 (27.4) 20 (27.4) 6 (8.2)

3. When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with respect. (M=3.10, N=72)

11 (15.1) 10 (13.7) 22 (30.1) 19 (26.0) 10 (13.7)

4. When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite. (M=2.86, N=72)

13 (17.8) 14 (19.2) 21 (28.8) 18 (24.7)

6 (8.2)

5. In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the general public. (M=2.93, N=72)

9 (12.3) 16 (21.9) 21 (28.8) 23 (31.5) 3 (4.1)

6. Generally, NOPD officers listen to me. (M=2.61, N=72)

16 (21.9) 20 (27.4) 16 (21.9) 16 (21.9) 4 (5.5)

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me. (M=2.71, N=72)

15 (20.5) 19 (26.0) 16 (21.9) 16 (21.9) 6 (8.2)

8. I trust NOPD officers. (M=2.04, N=71)

30 (41.1) 21 (28.8) 10 (13.7) 7 (9.6) 3 (4.1)

9. I have confidence in NOPD officers. (M=2.31, N=72)

26 (35.6) 17 (23.3) 14 (19.2) 11 (15.1) 4 (5.5)

10. I am satisfied with the way

NOPD officers do their job.

19 (26.0) 15 (20.5) 22 (30.1) 12 (16.4) 4 (5.5)

(M=2.54, N=72)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 45 of 129
Page 45 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3 includes the data from items similar to those in the previous table, however, items in this table are rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Thus, there is no neutral response category. Similar to the items in Table 2, the lowest rated item dealt with trust in NOPD officers. Specifically, the average rating for the statement “I feel NOPD officers are trustworthy” was 1.99 or “Disagree,” and the majority of respondents (72.6%) indicated they disagreed with the statement. Respondents were slightly more positive in their ratings of the statements “I believe police officers follow New Orleans Police Department procedures,” and “I was satisfied with how NOPD officers behave in New Orleans,” but for both items a majority of respondents still disagreed (56.1% and 65.8%, respectively). In response to whether “NOPD officers harass people during police stops,” a majority of respondents indicated they agreed with the statement (68.5%).

Table 3. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD

24. I feel NOPD officers are trustworthy. (M=1.99, N=71)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)
23 (31.5)

Disagree N (%)
30 (41.1)

Agree N (%) 14 (19.2)

Strongly Agree N (%)
4 (5.5)

25. I believe police officers follow New Orleans Police Department procedures. (M=2.31, N=72)

16 (21.9) 25 (34.2) 24 (32.9) 7 (9.6)

26. I was satisfied with how NOPD officers behave in New Orleans. (M=2.14, N=72)

18 (24.7) 30 (41.1) 20 (27.4) 4 (5.5)

37. NOPD officers harass people during police stops. (M=2.96, N=69)

6 (8.2) 13 (17.8) 28 (38.4) 22 (30.1)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

In addition to general questions regarding detainees’ perceptions of NOPD officers, the survey also asked for respondents’ perceptions of NOPD officers’ hypothetical treatment of them. (see Table 4). Responses to these items were rated on a four-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) using the same methods discussed for Table 2.19 The average response for each of these items fell closer to the “Disagree” category than the “Agree” category. A majority of respondents (60.3% and 56.2%, respectively) indicated that they disagreed with the statements “A NOPD officer would treat me with dignity,” and “A NOPD officer would treat me with respect.” However, a majority (52.1%) agreed with the statement “An NOPD police officer would be polite when dealing with me.”

19

Note that the neutral category was not a possible answer choice for these questions.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 46 of 129
Page 46 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Detainees’ perceptions of how NOPD officers would treat them

27. A NOPD officer would treat me with dignity. (M=2.29, N=72)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)
14 (19.2)

Disagree
N (%) 30 (41.1)

Agree
N (%) 21 (28.8)

Strongly Agree N (%)
7 (9.6)

28. A NOPD officer would treat me with respect. (M=2.31, N=72)

17 (23.3) 24 (32.9) 23 (31.5) 8 (11.0)

30. An NOPD police officer would be polite 14 (19.2) 20 (27.4) 30 (41.1) 8 (11.0) when dealing with me. (M=2.44, N=72)
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

2. General Attitudes Toward The NOPD
Survey participants also were asked for their perceptions of the NOPD as an agency. Whereas items in the previous sections asked about NOPD officers, items in this section ask about things such as professionalism and respect for the NOPD as an organization. As an overarching question to address this area, the survey asked participants how well they thought the NOPD was doing its job. Responses are summarized in Figure 2. The most common response was “Adequately,” but responses seemed to be slightly more common on the poorly side of adequately than on the well side of adequately.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 47 of 129 Page 47 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 2. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD job quality

The survey also asked for more specific ratings regarding the NOPD. Table 5 presents a number of questions regarding the detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD. The items are similar in nature to the items presented in Tables 2 and 3, but tend to be directed more toward the NOPD as an agency than toward NOPD officers. Thinking about the NOPD as an agency, instead of thinking about NOPD officers did not seem to change responses. The statements “I respect the New Orleans Police Department” and “The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community” both had average responses around the midpoint of possible ratings.20 The statement “I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department,” had a lower average rating and a majority of respondents (61.7%) disagreed. Trust was again an issue for the respondents as the average rating for the statement “I trust the New Orleans Police Department” was 2.00 or “Disagree.” Furthermore, only about one-fourth of respondents (24.6%) agreed with the statement on trust.

20

Ratings were on a scale from 1 to 4, so neutral would fall at 2.5, though it was not possible for an

individual respondent to give this rating.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 48 of 129
Page 48 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD

29. I respect the New Orleans Police Department. (M=2.46, N=72)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)
15 (20.5)

Disagree N (%)
21 (28.8)

Agree N (%) 24 (32.9)

Strongly Agree N (%)
12 (16.4)

34. I trust the New Orleans Police Department. (M=2.00, N=71)

24 (32.9) 29 (39.7) 12 (16.4) 6 (8.2)

35. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. (M=2.13, N=69)

21 (28.8) 24 (32.9) 18 (24.7) 6 (8.2)

36. The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community. (M=2.49, N=72)

12 (16.4) 22 (30.1) 29 (39.7)

9 (12.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Table 6 summarizes respondents’ ratings of the NOPD’s professionalism, community relations, and respectfulness. Respondents tend to view both the NOPD’s professionalism and community relations as “Sometimes Professional” and “Sometimes Positive.” Similarly, the most common rating of NOPD officers’ treatment of respondents, friends, and family members was “Sometimes treat us with respect.” Thus, ratings for all three items were neutral.
As a follow-up to the questions presented in Table 6, respondents were asked to rate how the NOPD had changed over the past two years with respect to those same questions (see Table 7). While the most common response for all three questions was “About the same as two years ago,” the average rating leaned slightly positive for the items on professionalism and respect, and slightly negative on the question about community relations. Table 7 also presents a fourth question about change in the treatment of minorities over the past two years. The most common response and the average rating both fell in the “About the same” category for this question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 49 of 129
Page 49 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful treatment.

Never Professional N (%)

Sometimes Professional
N (%)

Always Professional N (%)

I would like to know if you think the NOPD is professional. Officers are: (M=2.06, N=72)

6 (8.2)

56 (76.7)

10 (13.7)

Never Positive N (%)

Sometimes Positive N (%)

Always Positive N (%)

How would you describe relations between NOPD and your community? (M=1.76, N=72)

21 (28.8)

47 (64.4)

4 (5.5)

Never treat us with respect N (%)

Seldom treat us with respect N (%)

Sometimes treat us with
respect N (%)

Often treat us with respect N (%)

Always treat us with respect N (%)

Please tell me which statement best describes how NOPD officers treat you, your friends, and family members. Officers: (M=2.96, N=70)

4 (5.5) 19 (26.0) 32 (43.8)

6 (8.2)

9 (12.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 50 of 129
Page 50 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Comparison of detainees’ perceptions of professionalism, treatment, and respectfulness

Compared to 2 years ago:

Much less professional
today N (%)

Slightly less professional
today N (%)

About the same as two years ago
N (%)

Somewhat more
professional today N (%)

Much more professional
today N (%)

NOPD officers are: (professionalism, M=3.18, N=62)

8 (11.0)

6 (8.2) 24 (32.9)

15 (20.5)

9 (12.3)

Much worse N (%)

Somewhat worse N (%)

About the same
N (%)

Somewhat better N (%)

Much better N (%)

How would you describe the relationship between NOPD and your community? (M=2.80, N=66)

9 (12.3)

12 (16.4) 31 (42.5)

11 (15.1)

3 (4.1)

Much less respectful
today N (%)

Somewhat less
respectful today N (%)

About the same as two years ago
N (%)

Somewhat more
respectful today N (%)

Much more respectful
today N (%)

NOPD officers are: (respect, M=3.14, N=64)

9 (12.3)

6 (8.2) 23 (31.5)

19 (26.0)

7 (9.6)

Much worse N (%)

Somewhat worse N (%)

About the same
N (%)

Somewhat better N (%)

Much better N (%)

How do NOPD officers treat minorities compared to others? (M=3.05, N=38)

2 (2.7)

5 (6.8) 22 (30.1)

7 (9.6)

2 (2.7)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 51 of 129
Page 51 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The last set of questions related to attitudes regarding the detainees’ perceptions of NOPD and the use of force (see Table 8). A majority of respondents (60.3%) agreed with the statement “NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years.” Additionally, a majority of respondents (56.2%) agreed with the statement “NOPD officers routinely use excessive force.” The average rating for both of these statements fell closest to the “Agree” category.

Table 8. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD use of force

NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years. (M=2.85, N=68)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%) N (%)

4 (5.5) 20 (27.4)

Agree N (%) 26 (35.6)

Strongly Agree N (%)
18 (24.7)

NOPD officers routinely use excessive force. (M=2.69, N=70)

6 (8.2) 23 (31.5) 28 (38.4) 13 (17.8)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

3. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities
Survey participants were asked a series of questions regarding the NOPD’s treatment of minorities (Table 9). For this set of questions, responses were scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The interviewers recorded a fifth response, “No Opinion.” Given that “no opinion” did not necessarily mean neutral, but could serve as a response similar to I don’t know, these responses were not given a score and were treated as missing when calculating the average for each response. This was considered distinct from the Not Sure category coding process utilized in certain sections of the officer survey. Responses to statements on the treatment of the black community and the Latino community were similar. The average response to the statements “New Orleans police officers treat members of the black community fairly” and “New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino community fairly,” fell in the disagree category. The average response was closer to the midpoint for statements on the fair treatment of the Vietnamese community and the LGBT community. However, a majority of respondents (56.1%) agreed with the statement, “New Orleans police officers engage in racial profiling.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 52 of 129
Page 52 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD treatment of minorities

New Orleans police officers:
Treat members of the Black community fairly. (M=1.94, N=52)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)

Disagree N (%)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

No Opinion N (%)

18 (24.7) 21 (28.8) 11 (15.1) 2 (2.7) 20 (27.4)

Treat members of the Latino community fairly. (M=1.95, N=39)

15 (20.5) 13 (17.8) 9 (12.3) 2 (2.7) 33 (45.2)

Treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly. (M=2.59, N=34)

5 (6.8)

7 (9.6) 19 (26.0) 3 (4.1) 38 (52.1)

Treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly. (M=2.30, N=37)

8 (11.0) 13 (17.8) 13 (17.8) 3 (4.1) 35 (47.9)

Engage in racial profiling. (M=3.00, N=56)

4 (5.5) 11 (15.1) 22 (30.1) 19 (26.0) 15 (20.5)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item. In calculating mean score, “No Opinion”

was treated as missing.

4. Perceptions of Arrest
The items presented above deal with detainees’ evaluations of NOPD as an organization, NOPD officers in general, or NOPD officers in hypothetical situations. The data in Tables 10 and 11 present information on the participants’ contact with the NOPD that led to their detention. Table 10 presents ratings of perceived fairness on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). While all three items presented in Table 10 had average responses around the midpoint of the scale, responses to the statements “If I was stopped or questioned by an NOPD officer, the police officer explained the reasons why,” and “When dealing with me, the NOPD officer gave me a chance to explain the situation,” were slightly below the midpoint. In fact, a slight majority of respondents (50.7%) disagreed with the statement regarding the opportunity to explain the situation. These two items are of particular importance to 21st century policing as they are important components of procedural justice, a key method for improving trust that was identified

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 53 of 129
Page 53 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

in the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.21 On a more positive note, however, a majority of detainees (67.1%) felt that the NOPD officer “did his or her job” during the arrest.

Table 10. Detainees’ perceptions of officer behavior during arrest

If I was stopped or questioned by an NOPD officer, the police officer explained the reasons why. (M=2.31, N=67)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

19 (26.0) 15 (20.5) 26 (35.6) 7 (9.6)

When dealing with me, the NOPD officer gave me a chance to explain the situation. (M=2.39, N=69)

16 (21.9) 21 (28.8) 21 (28.8) 11 (15.1)

Overall, the NOPD officer did his or her job. (M=2.75, N=69)

9 (12.3) 11 (15.1) 37 (50.7) 12 (16.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Table 11 presents a different approach to assessing participants’ perceptions of the arrest. Rather than asking for perceptions on a scale, these items ask for yes or no questions regarding a number of details related to the arrest. A small majority of respondents (57.5%) indicated they understood why they were stopped, but a larger majority (76.7%) indicated they understood why they were arrested. An even greater percentage (80.8%) of respondents indicated they understood why they were in jail. A sizable majority (72.6%) felt that the police treated them fairly and indicated that they had no problems communicating with the officer (75.3%). A smaller majority (60.3%) indicated that the officer informed them of their rights when they were arrested. Encouragingly, almost all respondents indicated that the officer did not threaten them physically or use force. No respondents indicated that they physically resisted the officer and 5 (6.8%) reported being hurt while interacting with the officer.

21

Note that trust in the NOPD and its officers was rated particularly low in an earlier section of this report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 54 of 129
Page 54 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 11. Detainees’ perceptions of arrest

Did the officer(s) explain why you were stopped?

No N (%)
19 (26.0)

Did the officer(s) explain why you were arrested?

13 (17.8)

Do you understand why you are in jail today?

11 (15.1)

Did the police treat you fairly?

18 (24.7)

Did you have any problems communicating with the officer?

55 (75.3)

Did the officer inform you of your rights?

25 (34.2)

Did an officer threaten you physically?

70 (95.9)

Did an officer use force to arrest you?

67 (91.8)

Did you physically resist the officer?

71 (97.3)

Were you hurt when interacting with the officer?

66 (90.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

Yes N (%) 42 (57.5) 56 (76.7) 59 (80.8) 53 (72.6) 16 (21.9) 44 (60.3) 1 (1.4) 4 (5.5) 0 (0.0) 5 (6.8)

5. Future Behavior

Citizens’ perceptions of police officers and police departments been argued to be important because it impacts the individuals’ willingness to cooperate with the police in the future22. To reflect this reality, Table 12 includes respondents’ ratings of their willingness to contact the NOPD in the future. Both items had neutral average ratings and very similar numbers of respondents agreeing and disagreeing with the statements.

Table 12. Detainees’ willingness to contact NOPD in the future

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD. (M=2.52, N=71)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)
14 (19.2)

Disagree N (%) 19 (26.0)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

25 (34.2) 13 (17.8)

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime. (M=2.50, N=72)

15 (20.5)

21 (28.8) 21 (28.8) 15 (20.5)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of

respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

22

Tyler, 1990

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 55 of 129
Page 55 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
To illustrate the point that individuals’ perceptions of police officers are related to their willingness to cooperate a simple, bivariate Pearson’s correlation was run between a scale created using the items in Table 12 and a scale created using the items in Table 5. This technique aims to determine how strong a relationship may be between two items. Table 5 presented data on the perceptions of the NOPD as an agency. The four items in this table were summed for each individual, as were the 2 items in Table 12. The resulting scales were correlated at r=.651, p<.001. This indicates a strong association between the two scales where the better the perceptions of the NOPD an individual has, the more likely they were to indicate that they would contact the NOPD regarding dangerous or suspicious activities, or after witnessing a crime. This simple analysis demonstrates that the perceptions of a specific police department are, in fact, related to individuals’ willingness to contact that police department regarding dangerous activity.
6. Qualitative Information
The detainee interview also included questions concerning respondents’ best and worst experiences with the NOPD. Responses to the best experience individuals had with the NOPD were varied. Some best experiences involved officers doing a good job (e.g. “Police officer talked me out of committing suicide” or “Police found son’s murderer”) or facilitating a favorable outcome (e.g. “Was given a summons instead of being taken to jail”). While these were undoubtedly positive experiences, outcomes are frequently beyond the control of the police department. Sometimes a favorable outcome simply is not possible. Another form of best experience noted by respondents related to the treatment the officer provided (e.g. “They’ve been nice, they could be d***s, but they haven’t” or “Handcuffs were hurting him and the cop nicely made them not hurt anymore” or “gave me time to listen to my point of view”). The most common response to the best experience question, however, was that there had not been a best experience with the NOPD. Obviously, police officers must interact with people on the worst nights of their lives, whether they are a victim or a criminal, so it is not hard to understand why there may be no best experience for individuals interacting with police officers.
Responses to the worst experience with the NOPD were much more common than responses to the best experience with the NOPD. Responses to this question were also varied but tended to revolve around similar ideas of getting hurt (e.g. “Getting tazed” or “had my face kicked in” or “the police officer choked me”), being treated disrespectfully/unfairly (e.g. “they just don’t listen” or “some people just talk to you like they don’t give a damn”), or being wrongfully arrested (e.g. “wrongfully arrested” or “accused of something I didn’t do”).
C. Detainee Survey Comparisons (2014 – 2016)
1. Executive Summary
To date, the Monitoring Team has conducted two surveys of detainees arrested by the NOPD. One survey was conducted in 2014 and one in 2016. These surveys had a number of overlapping
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 56 of 129
Page 56 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

questions that provided the opportunity to compare detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD in 2014 to detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD in 2016. This comparison found:

 Average responses to items regarding attitudes toward the NOPD were either more positive in 2016 or similar in both years for each item that specifically referred to the NOPD. Scaled scores of attitudes showed that detainees had slightly more positive attitudes toward NOPD than in the previous survey.

 On average, respondents in 2016 believed the NOPD to be more professional and to have better relations with their community.

 Overall, detainees’ perceptions of their current arrest were improved across all measured domains. Scaled scores of detainees’ perceptions of their current arrest indicated more positive experiences with the NOPD in 2016 than in 2014.

Before comparing detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD and their officers, however, a comparison of the participants must be developed. Table 1 displays the percentage of individual characteristics of those who were questioned in each year. The frequencies for each category are omitted because variation in sample size makes frequency comparison uninformative. However, the original demographic tables for each year may be found in Appendix D. Overall, the samples for 2014 and 2016 look quite similar. In both 2014 and 2016 slightly less than 80% of respondents indicated they were male and approximately 80% indicated they lived in New Orleans. Additionally, slightly less than 70% of both samples indicated they were black. The only sizeable difference in percentages can be found in those participants indicating they were white, which rose from 12.1% in 2014 to 19.2% in 2016. In sum, the samples would appear similar enough that comparisons across key questions are useful.

Table 1. Demographic Comparisons

2014 Percentage

Gender

Male

79.3

Female

19.0

2016 Percentage
78.1 15.1

Race White Black Latino Other

12.1

19.2

69.0

67.1

3.4

4.1

13.8

6.8

New Orleans Resident

Yes

79.3

80.8

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 57 of 129
Page 57 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

2. Attitudes Toward The NOPD

The first set of overlapping questions asked detainees about their perceptions of the NOPD and its officers. The original frequency distributions for 2014 and 2016 can be found in Appendix D, however, the average response provides an easier, more concise method of comparison and can be found in Table 2. In both 2014 and 2016, detainees were asked questions included in Table 2 on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Thus, higher average scores indicate greater agreement with the statement. Detainees participating in the 2016 survey had,
on average, more positive responses to statements regarding NOPD officers doing their jobs the
right way, satisfaction with the way NOPD officers handle themselves, a belief that NOPD
officers treat the respondent with respect, a belief that NOPD officers are polite towards the
individual, a belief that NOPD officers listen to the respondent, and satisfaction with the way NOPD officers treat the arrestee. These findings were not statistically significant. There were roughly equivalent average responses to statements regarding NOPD officers being polite with the general public, and trust in NOPD officers. Importantly, in 2016, several questions were modified and did not allow for a meaningful comparison. Specifically, the wording in items 8, 9, and 10 were changed dramatically from the previous survey in order to reference NOPD rather than NOPD generally.23 While these three items measured similar concepts in 2014 and 2016 (trust, confidence, satisfaction with the way officers do their job), they focused on police generally in 2014 and the NOPD specifically in 2016. It is possible that respondents view the NOPD differently than they view police, generally.

That said, it is important to reiterate that these items are particularly challenging for comparisons. If these three items are removed from the comparisons, then the detainees had either more positive perceptions of the NOPD in 2016 or similar perceptions of the NOPD across both time periods.

Table 2. Comparison of Detainees’ Attitudes toward the NOPD

2014 Average

1. Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way.

2.64

2. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle

2.60

themselves.

3. When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with

2.69

respect.

4. When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite.

2.74

5. In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the

2.91

general public.

6. Generally, NOPD officers listen to me.

2.53

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me.

2.51

8. I trust NOPD officers.1

2.07

2016 Average 2.99 2.94
3.10
2.86 2.93
2.61 2.71 2.04

23

“I trust NOPD officers” versus “I trust the police generally.” “I have confidence in NOPD officers” versus

“I have confidence in the police generally.” And “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job”

versus “I am satisfied with the way police do their job generally.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 58 of 129
Page 58 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Comparison of Detainees’ Attitudes toward the NOPD

9. I have confidence in NOPD officers.1 10. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.1

2014 Average 2016 Average

2.42

2.31

2.61

2.54

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2016. However, the substantive issue the

question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers

consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2016. 1On 2014 survey the only comparable item asked about police officers generally, rather than the NOPD specifically.

To determine whether overall perceptions of the NOPD had improved from 2014 to 2016, scale scores for the items presented in Table 2 were created and analyzed.24 A positive shift in attitude was noted, although the changes were not statistically significant in the analysis. 25

Table 3. Comparison of Detainees’ Perceptions of NOPD

2014 Average 2016 Average

I would like to know if you think the NOPD is professional.

1.63

2.06

How would you describe relations between NOPD and your community?

1.65

1.76

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2016. However, the substantive issue the

question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers

consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2016.

2014 items were originally measured on a 5-point scale but have been transformed to a 3-point scale for

comparison to 2016 items.

A second set of items provided the opportunity to compare detainees’ perceptions of the police from 2014 to 2016. These items asked about the NOPD’s professionalism and the detainees’ perception of relations between the NOPD and their community (Table 3). Both items in this table had very similar wording from the 2014 survey to the 2016 survey. The 2014 survey, however, was measured on a different scale from the 2016 survey. In 2014, respondents were able to respond on a scale from 1 (Highly Unprofessional/Very Negative) to 5 (Highly Professional/Very Positive). In 2016, respondents were asked to respond on a scale from 1

24

Items 8, 9, and 10 were excluded from the scores because of their differential focus as noted above.

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the remaining seven items and confirmed that all seven items

were measuring a related construct – attitudes toward the NOPD. This type of statistical analysis is used to

identify if relationships exist between various variables. Using the weights for each item from the

exploratory factor analysis, regression scores were computed for each individual. (Creating regression

scores using exploratory factor analysis is a preferred method of scaling compared to summated scales

because it weights each item according to the strength of its relationship to the general construct being

measured. This process reduces the impact of measurement error on the final scale score.) Individuals then

were grouped according to the year in which they completed the survey and the mean score for each year

was compared using an independent samples t-test. This test revealed that attitudes toward the NOPD had

improved from 2014 to 2016, although the changes were not significant.

25

t(126.76)=-1.43, p=0.16

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 59 of 129
Page 59 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

(Never Professional/Never Positive) to 3 (Always Professional/Always Positive). To account for this difference the 2014 surveys were converted to a three-point scale by dividing the average response by 5 and then multiplying by 3. On average, respondents in 2016 had higher ratings of the NOPD’s professionalism and more positive ratings of the NOPD’s relations with their community. The original distribution of responses for both 2014 and 2016 can be found in the appendix to this Special Report.

3. Detainees’ Perceptions of Arrest

The final set of questions that allowed for comparisons across the two surveys related to detainees’ perceptions of the arrest that led to their current detention. The 2016 survey included more questions regarding the detainee’s arrest but only those that were directly comparable to questions on the 2014 survey are included here. Responses to these items were coded as either yes or no for both years. Table 4 presents the number and percentage of respondents indicating yes to each item. As with the previous tables, comparisons of the number of respondents are uninformative because of variation in sample size. Overall, responses to these questions indicate improvement for the NOPD on each item. Higher percentages of respondents indicate that the officer explained why they were stopped, the police treated them fairly, and an officer informed them of their rights. Lower percentages of respondents indicated they had problems communicating with the officer, and the officer used force to arrest them. In both 2014 and 2016, no respondents indicated they physically resisted the officer.

Table 4. Detainees’ perceptions of arrest Did the officer(s) explain why you were stopped?

2014 N (%)
30 (51.7)

2016 N (%)
42 (57.5)

Did the police treat you fairly?

35 (60.3) 53 (72.6)

Did you have any problems communicating with the officer?

18 (31.0) 16 (21.9)

Did the officer inform you of your rights?

19 (32.8) 44 (60.3)

Did an officer use force to arrest you?

5 (8.6)

4 (5.5)

Did you physically resist the officer?

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Note: Percentages reflect percentage of that year’s respondents that indicated “yes” to the question.

In an effort to see how large the differences in detainees’ arrests were, scale scores were constructed for the items in Table 4. “Did the officer inform you of your rights?” was excluded from the analysis because informing detainees of their rights is only required when the detainee is questioned by the arresting officer. “Did you physically resist the officer?” was excluded from the analysis because no respondents in either year indicated yes. To create the scale, yes responses were coded as 1 and no responses were coded as 0. The items regarding communication and use of force were then reverse coded so that 1 always indicated a more positive experience with the NOPD. These items were then summed for each individual.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 60 of 129 Page 60 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Individuals were then grouped by year and the means for each year were compared using an independent samples t-test. The test revealed that detainees’ perceptions of arrest were significantly more positive in 2016 than in 2014, t(107)=-2.02, p<0.05. The mean value in 2014 was 2.75, while the mean value in 2016 was 3.18. Thus, detainees in 2016, on average, had a more positive experience when arrested by the NOPD.
4. Conclusion The NOPD’s reform efforts have resulted in many changes to the Department’s operations since the Consent Decree was enacted in August, 2013. The survey comparisons presented here provide an opportunity to assess how these changes have altered arrestees’ perceptions of the NOPD. Specifically, it can be determined if arrestees in 2016 perceive either their treatment at the hands of the NOPD or the NOPD generally differently from those arrested by the NOPD two years ago. The results provide preliminary evidence that the NOPD is, in fact, perceived more positively now than it was two years ago. Detainees had slightly more positive general attitudes towards the NOPD and significantly more positive perceptions of their current arrest.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 61 of 129
Page 61 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VIII. COMMUNITY SURVEY

A. Executive Summary

In January and February of 2017, the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (Monitoring Team) conducted a survey of 869 New Orleans residents. Residents were asked a series of questions regarding their views of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). The demographics of the respondents to this survey were consistent with the 2010 US Census estimates for New Orleans, with the exception of age characteristics. Thus, there is evidence that the sample used to generate these findings is representative of the views of the population of New Orleans. Below is a list of the key findings from the analysis of the community survey.

 Three hundred sixty respondents had contact with the NOPD in the last 2 years.



On average, these residents felt that the NOPD officer was trustworthy,

followed NOPD procedures, treated the individual with dignity and

respect, and was polite.



Nearly three-fourths of these residents were satisfied with how the NOPD

officer behaved during their interaction.

 One hundred twenty-one respondents had been stopped and questioned by the NOPD in the past two years.



On average, these residents had neither positive nor negative perceptions

of the NOPD. However, a sizeable minority were dissatisfied with their

treatment by the NOPD.

 Residents’ overall satisfaction with the NOPD was somewhat negative as a majority of respondents indicated the NOPD did not respond in a timely manner and believed the NOPD had little impact on crime.



On average, individuals with recent NOPD contact were less satisfied with

the NOPD than those without recent contact.

 An evaluation of citizens’ perceptions of change in the NOPD in recent years found no clear indication of overall improvement in perceptions of the NOPD.



Conflicting responses were seen in items related to the use of force in

recent years. It may be that the powerful national narrative around police

abuse of power in recent years was more influential than the positive

changes in the NOPD.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 62 of 129
Page 62 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com



Individuals with recent NOPD contact were less likely to believe that the

NOPD had increased its use of force in recent years.

 A majority of respondents felt that NOPD officers were honest, fair, professional, and followed NOPD procedures.

 A majority of residents indicated they trusted the NOPD, respected the NOPD and were confident in the NOPD.

 On average, individuals with recent NOPD contact had lower evaluations of the NOPD’s procedural justice and trustworthiness.

 A majority of residents reported being willing to cooperate with the NOPD.



The most common reasons for not cooperating with the NOPD were a lack

of trust in the NOPD and a desire not to get involved.



Individuals with recent NOPD contact were more likely to indicate they

would cooperate with the NOPD in the future.

 Overall, citizens believed the NOPD to be transparent and that the NOPD treated citizens with respect.

 Responses to items regarding the NOPD’s treatment of minorities were somewhat negative.



There was considerable evidence of tense relationships with both the black

and Latino communities, but not the Vietnamese or LGBT communities.

B. Community Survey Methodology

The 2017 Community Survey conducted by the Monitoring Team, included questioning of one adult resident in 869 housing units in Orleans Parish between January and February 2017. The original survey, conducted in 2014, developed a multi-stage random area sampling process starting with a specified geographical area. Each area was divided further into smaller districts. Finally, specific houses were identified in each district. This process selected the original pool of neighborhoods from the population of 73 designated “official” neighborhoods. These original twenty baseline neighborhoods along with 2017 additions are included in the table below.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 63 of 129
Page 63 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table: 2017 Community Survey Neighborhoods.

*2017 Only

Neighborhood
Audubon Behrman Bywater City Park East Riverside French Quarter Gentilly Woods Lake Terrace & Oaks Leonidas Little Woods Lower Garden District Marlyville/Fontainebleau Milan Old Aurora Plum Orchard Seventh Ward St. Claude Tall Timbers/Brechtel U.S. Naval Support Area West End Filmore* MidCity* Lower 9th Ward* Milneburg* Marigny* Florida* St. Roch* McDonogh* Algiers Point*

As in the original 2014 Survey, the desired number of completed survey interviews was approximately 600 household residents across 20 parish neighborhoods. In anticipation of vacancies, refusals, or non-available respondents, we assumed a response rate of 50 percent. Consequently, the baseline sample size of 1,200 cases was maintained during initial data collection, consistent with 2014 sampling procedure. This approach required the targeted completion of approximately 30 surveys per neighborhood. During the Baseline, this approach was designed to assess public opinion of NOPD generally, and to produce demographic insights including analysis attentive to neighborhood, district, race, educational attainment, and other demographics. Nine additional neighborhoods were added for the 2017 survey. Households in these neighborhoods were selected randomly, and we attempted to complete our goal of thirty surveys in each neighborhood.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 64 of 129
Page 64 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
This survey was administered between January 7th and February 11th, 2017. Participation in the study was voluntary and respondents were assured confidentiality. The survey team of approximately 35 members included security personnel and recorders and interviewers (surveyors). The interviewers and recorders were trained on the survey data collection goals and procedures, the interview protocol and qualitative structured interview techniques. The team members were recruited from the community, in an attempt to develop a diverse team with a well-developed capacity to engage local Orleans Parish residents. Surveyors were trained to promote an atmosphere that encourages respondents to speak freely. Surveyors were also trained to facilitate an appropriate level of quiet and privacy for successful and proper data collection.
In-person surveys were conducted once permission to continue was granted. A security patrol service was employed for surveillance to ensure safety and assure legitimacy of data collection activities. Security patrol officers were in sight but far enough away not to hear the discussion. Surveyors were outfitted in “uniform” vests marked on the back with “Consent Decree Survey Team” and “OCDM” on the front. Surveyors carried a formal script embedded with an Office of the Consent Decree Monitor seal to identify themselves to the community and respondents.
The survey tool was based on the 2014 survey and included items asking for attitudes concerning the department, policing, officers, crime, and the community. The survey instrument also documented demographic indicators, such as the race, gender or parish residency/tenure of respondents. Survey questions required multiple choice or Likert-scale responses. The survey instrument was pre-loaded onto a mobile tablet, so responses could be recorded electronically. All surveyors were matched into teams of two, consisting of an interviewer and a recorder. A neighborhood was broken into smaller sub-areas, assigned to a survey pair. Each pair was assigned a dedicated security patrol officer for the duration of their shift. Surveying took place between 8:30am-5:30pm, on various days of the week, weekends and weekdays.
For each selected neighborhood, block-by-block street maps directed each survey team’s data collection. For each survey shift (typically full day), each team (approximately 4-6 on weekdays and 10-12 on weekends) was assigned a unique map that designated selected streets and housing units. To assist in monitoring the full execution of shift plans, security patrols were provided duplicates of all assigned maps to guarantee intended operationalization of the door-to-door plan for each neighborhood.
A review of first round of street selection identified non-residential dwellings, inclusion of multiunit residences (for example, apartment complexes or doubles), and vacancies. To assist in the process of refining or correcting randomized housing unit selection, survey staff physically reviewed each neighborhood by patrolling all selected streets to determine non-residential dwellings, safety concerns, and accessibility (for example, some French Quarter units have inaccessible entrances).
After the street review and patrol, a rule was applied that when the number of non-residential, blighted, and/or vacant units (singularly or in sum) exceeded the number of residential units on a block, housing units were selected deliberately, differentiated from those other dwellings. For
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 65 of 129
Page 65 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
the remaining residential streets, a first house on the first block on the first street was the starting point for a shift. A minimum of 60 residential housing units were identified in each neighborhood.
A schedule was developed to ensure that survey teams visited neighborhoods on at least two separate days, including a week day and weekend day, to allow for adequate coverage of relatively large neighborhoods. Each survey team would approach a housing unit identified on its neighborhood map. After contact with a resident, surveyors solicited voluntary participation in the survey. Refusals were recorded and documented. After permission was granted, the survey interview was conducted at the resident’s home with one surveyor reading all questions and the other recording all responses into the mobile tablet.
In case of refusals, replacement units were selected beginning with the first house of the next block. A refusal is defined as contact made with the resident of a housing unit, with the resident declining to participate in the survey. Eight hundred sixty-nine (869) Orleans parish residents completed the survey but there were 1575 refusals. In practice, once all selected units on a street were approached in a given neighborhood, survey teams made additional attempts to cover any remaining blocks to complete surveys.
As we used similar methods as used in the 2014 survey, which included a random selection of 20 neighborhoods, we are able to make accurate comparisons within and between the neighborhoods that were included in both surveys. We supplemented this sample with a convenience sample of 9 additional neighborhoods in 2017, which we identified as demographically different than the ones which were selected in 2014.
In gathering responses, the Community Survey project manager regularly maintained quality control measures, monitoring daily data collection analytics to identify potential integrity issues. A random sample of survey entries was selected daily. For example, manual entry items (such a survey start time, duration, interviewer name and neighborhood) were compared against automated documentation of these indicators for interviewer data entry error. Any inconsistencies were recorded daily and corrected.
C. 2017 NOLA Community Survey Analysis
The Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (Monitoring Team) surveyed 869 residents of New Orleans in the first two months of 2017 on their perceptions of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). Before describing the results of the survey, it is important to note that there was considerable media coverage of NOPD during the survey dates that might have influenced community attitudes. For example, there was coverage of hiring issues that was likely seen as having a negative influence on NOPD. As well as the media, citizens form opinions based on a variety of influences that cannot be controlled. The methodological datacollection details of the survey are included as Appendix G, the demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1 and these data can be compared to US Census data to determine the representative nature of the sample. Almost 49% of the sample was female
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 66 of 129
Page 66 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
compared to 51.6% reported by the US Census Bureau in 2010. 54.8% of the sample identified as black compared to 60.2% in the 2010 Census. 90.0% of sample respondents indicated they had at least a high school diploma compared to 85.2% in the 2010 Census. All three of these comparisons show that the community survey had similar demographics to the 2010 Census. By contrast, 17.6% of respondents reported being 65 years or older while Census data indicate that 10.9% of New Orleans residents in 2010 were 65 years or older (for more age information see Figure 1). This comparison, however, is not entirely fair as the Census includes all individuals and the survey primarily targeted adult residents. Thus, the 21.3% of individuals under 18 in the 2010 Census were not targeted in the community survey. In sum, there is considerable evidence to support the claim that the sample obtained for this survey is representative of the population of New Orleans.
Figure 1. Histogram of Participant Age

In addition to the statistics that are easily comparable to the US Census, the demographic information from the survey also revealed that 40.4% of respondents are single, compared to 38.8% who are married. Most of respondents were born in New Orleans (70.2%) and owned their home (61.7%). Sixty respondents (6.9%) identified as a member of the LGBT population. Finally, only 10 respondents (1.2%) indicated that they had completed a previous version of this survey in 2014.

Table 1. Demographics
Gender Male Female

N

%

437

50.3

423

48.7

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 67 of 129
Page 67 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Race/Ethnicity Black White Asian Latino/Hispanic Other

476

54.8

309

35.6

5

0.6

9

1.0

45

5.2

Education

Grade School

8

0.9

Middle School

7

0.8

Some High School

38

4.4

Finished High School

186

21.4

Some College

205

23.6

Finished College Degree

253

29.1

Some Graduate/Professional

44

5.1

Finished Graduate/Professional Degree

94

10.8

Marital Status Single Married Divorced Widowed Partnered

351

40.4

337

38.8

63

7.2

50

5.8

29

3.3

Born in New Orleans? Yes No

610

70.2

259

29.8

Own Home? Own Rent

536

61.7

309

35.6

Identify as LGBT? Yes No

60

6.9

744

85.6

Completed Survey in 2014

10

1.2

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values.

1. Citizens’ Most Recent Interaction with NOPD
The first section of the survey asked respondents for their perceptions of their most recent interactions with the NOPD. Three hundred sixty respondents (41.4%) indicated that they had contact with the NOPD in the last 2 years and were therefore eligible to answer questions

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 68 of 129
Page 68 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

regarding their most recent interaction. Table 2 presents the distribution of responses for each question in this section. The average response is calculated by assigning values from 1 to 4 for each category from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.26 Higher responses indicate greater agreement with the question. For each item in Table 2, the average response was between 2.80 and 2.90 indicating agreement with the statement. Additionally, over 60% of the 360 individuals who had recent contact with the police fell in the agree category for each item. As a result, it can be concluded that residents with recent contact with the NOPD generally feel that the NOPD officer was trustworthy, followed NOPD procedures, treated the individual with dignity and respect, and was polite. Additionally, the large majority of citizens (74.7%) were satisfied with how the NOPD officer behaved during the interaction.

Table 2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

2. When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy. (M=2.84)

22 (6.1)

62 (17.2) 220 (61.1) 50 (13.9)

3. I believe the police officer was following New Orleans Police Department procedures. (M=2.85)

15 (4.2)

60 (16.7) 223 (64.7) 38 (10.6)

4. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved. (M=2.84)

20 (5.6) 63 (17.5) 223 (61.9) 46 (12.8)

5. The police officer treated me with dignity. (M=2.90)

17 (4.7) 58 (16.1) 223 (61.9) 55 (15.3)

6. The police officer treated me with respect. (M=2.90)

17 (4.7) 56 (15.6) 225 (62.5) 55 (15.3)

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me. (M=2.87)

14 (3.9) 69 (19.2) 224 (62.2) 49 (13.6)

Note: Percentages are the percentage of respondents who indicated they had contact within the last 2 years that fell

within each category. Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses

next to each item.

To gather more context regarding citizens’ perceptions of NOPD contact, five more questions were asked of participants who had been stopped and questioned by the NOPD in the past two years (Table 3). Thus, while the data in Table 2 include information from residents who were witnesses, victims, or had other contact with the police; these 121 participants (13.9%) were likely suspected of criminal behavior during their interaction with the NOPD. Responses to these items were less positive than the responses from those who were not suspects. The average rating for statements regarding the officer explaining reasons for the stop (M=2.65), giving the suspect

26

The same average score strategy will be taken with each table in this report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 69 of 129
Page 69 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

a chance to explain the situation (M=2.61), and that the police officer did his or her job (M=2.71) were slightly above the midpoint of the scale (2.5). However, average ratings for items regarding satisfaction with how the individual was treated by the officer (M=2.44) and satisfaction with the individual’s experience with the police (M=2.38) were slightly below the midpoint. The largest percentage of responses for each item fell in the agree category, however, large numbers of respondents indicated they strongly disagreed with some of the items. Overall, this suggests that individuals who were recently stopped or questioned had neutral perceptions of the NOPD, but some respondents were dissatisfied with their treatment by the NOPD.

Table 3. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers when stopped or questioned

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer explained the reasons why. (M=2.65)

14 (11.6)

24 (19.8)

73 (60.3)

Strongly Agree N (%)
10 (8.3)

9. When dealing with me, the police officer gave me a chance to explain the situation. (M=2.61)

12 (9.9) 32 (26.4) 65 (53.7) 10 (8.3)

10. Overall, the police officer did his or her job. (M=2.71)

8 (6.6) 29 (24.0) 70 (57.9) 11 (9.1)

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer. (M=2.44)

20 (16.5)

34 (28.1)

54 (44.6)

9 (7.4)

12. I was satisfied with my experience with the police. (M=2.38)

18 (14.9) 43 (35.5) 49 (40.5)

7 (5.8)

Note: Percentages are the percentage of respondents who indicated they were stopped or questioned by the police

within the last 2 years that fell within each category. Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The

mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

2. Citizens’ Satisfaction with the NOPD
Another group of items included on the survey assessed citizens’ overall satisfaction with the NOPD (Table 4). These items provide somewhat negative results for the NOPD. In responding to the statement, “Corruption in the New Orleans police department is low,” slightly more respondents disagreed (45.3%) than agreed (39.3%). Furthermore, most respondents (59.9%) did not agree that the NOPD respond in a timely manner. A majority of respondents (58.0%) also agreed that the NOPD has little impact on crime. The average ratings for the statements on satisfaction with the way NOPD officers do their jobs (M=2.50) and a belief that past scandals are not representative of current practices (M=2.58) was close to the midpoint of the scale, suggesting a neutral average response. Finally, nearly all of the respondents (88.1%) agreed that there was greater police presence in the French Quarter than other areas of New Orleans.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 70 of 129
Page 70 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

19. Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low. (M=2.35)

99 (11.4) 295 (33.9) 326 (37.5) 16 (1.8)

23. There is more police presence in the

French quarter than in other areas of New 2 (0.2) 50 (5.8) 374 (43.0) 392 (45.1)

Orleans. (M=3.41)

25. I feel the scandals associated with the

New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of

28 (3.2) 288 (33.1) 423 (48.7) 25 (2.9)

the NOPD. (M=2.58)

31. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs. (M=2.50)

61 (7.0) 313 (36.0) 417 (48.0) 26 (3.0)

34. When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner. (M=2.06)

243 (28.0) 277 (31.9)

247 (28.4)

21 (2.4)

24. Overall, the New Orleans Police

Department has little impact on crime.

14 (1.6) 291 (33.5) 442 (50.9) 62 (7.1)

(M=2.68)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

While the previous sections of the survey were limited by whether individuals had contact with the NOPD in the last two years, this section included answers from all individuals. This method makes it possible to compare the responses of individuals who had contact with the police to those who had no contact. Table 5 shows the average ratings for each item for individuals with contact in the last two years and those without. On the one hand, individuals who had contact with the NOPD were less likely to believe corruption was low, to be satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs, and to believe the NOPD responded in a timely manner. On the other hand, the average ratings for both groups were roughly equivalent for the items pertaining to police presence in the French Quarter, past NOPD scandals, and the NOPD’s impact on crime. These data suggest, that on average, individuals with recent NOPD contact were less satisfied with the NOPD than those who did not have contact with NOPD officers.

Table 5. Mean Satisfaction Ratings by Contact
19. Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
23. There is more police presence in the French quarter than in other areas of New Orleans.

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

2.49

2.17

3.44

3.45

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 71 of 129
Page 71 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Mean Satisfaction Ratings by Contact
25. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD
31. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.
34. When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.
24. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime.

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

2.59

2.55

2.53

2.32

2.13

1.91

2.73

2.74

3. Citizens’ Perceptions of Change in the NOPD
Another set of questions in the community survey assessed citizens’ perceptions of change in NOPD practices in recent years (Table 6). The data provided a mixed view of the NOPD. A majority of respondents believed that improvements in policing had been made in New Orleans (53.6%), that the NOPD had become a better police department (59.2%), and that the NOPD was less likely to use excessive force (52.6%) than in the past two years. However, a majority of respondents also believed that community members were more willing to resist NOPD officers (52.3%), and believed there were fewer officers in their community (52.9%) than there were two years ago. Items regarding neighbors’ confidence in the NOPD (M=2.58) and increases in use of force in recent years (M=2.57) received neutral ratings and did not have a majority of respondents indicate they agreed or disagreed.
Three questions assessed the impact of negative publicity and advances in technology on NOPD policing efforts. A majority of respondents (66.9%) believed that negative publicity made NOPD officers’ jobs more difficult, while a majority (51.8%) disagreed that audio and video recordings had made their jobs more difficult. However, a majority (60.5%) agreed that cell phone or video recording of NOPD officers caused officers to be more apprehensive to use force.
Overall, the items included in this section provided an interesting mix of responses with no clear indication of overall improvement in perceptions of the NOPD. This mix manifested in some conflicting evidence such as a majority of respondents believing the NOPD was less likely to use excessive force, but neutral responses to a separate item asking whether use of force has increased over the past two years. Police use of force has become an extremely sensitive topic in the public discourse since the events in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 – a date that roughly coincides with the 2-year reference period used in many of these questions. Individuals who watch the news frequently may be more likely to perceive outside news events as indicative of

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 72 of 129
Page 72 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

the behavior of NOPD officers. Additionally, local news may be more likely to conduct stories on police use of force given its prominence in the national discourse.

Table 6. Citizen perceptions of change in the NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

13. There have been improvements in

policing in New Orleans over the past

46 (5.3) 258 (29.7) 433 (49.8) 33 (3.8)

two years. (M=2.59)

26. In the past two years, the NOPD has

become a better police department.

48 (5.5) 212 (24.4) 494 (56.8) 21 (2.4)

(M=2.63)

40. When compared to 2 years ago, my

neighbors have more confidence in the

32 (3.7) 270 (31.1) 386 (44.4) 30 (3.5)

NOPD. (M=2.58)

45. Over the past 2 years, community

members have become more willing to

11 (1.3) 264 (30.4) 404 (46.5) 50 (5.8)

resist NOPD officers. (M=2.68)

46a. I have noticed fewer NOPD officers in

my community over the past two years. 19 (2.2) 317 (36.5) 368 (42.3) 92 (10.6)

(M=2.67)

46. Negative publicity surrounding policing

lately has made NOPD officers’ jobs

18 (2.1) 214 (24.6) 509 (58.6) 72 (8.3)

more difficult. (M=2.78)

47. Audio and video recordings of NOPD

have made their jobs more difficult.

48 (5.5) 402 (46.3) 325 (37.4) 47 (5.4)

(M=2.45)

48. Cell phone or video recording of NOPD

officers has caused officers to be more

20 (2.3) 253 (29.1) 466 (53.6) 60 (6.9)

apprehensive to use force. (M=2.71)

49. NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years. (M=2.57)

8 (0.9) 363 (41.8) 310 (35.7) 62 (7.1)

50. Compared to two years ago, today

NOPD are less likely to use excessive

30 (3.5) 257 (29.6) 429 (49.4) 28 (3.2)

force. (M=2.61)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

Table 7 presents the mean item ratings for each of the change-related questions for those who have and have not had contact with the NOPD in the last two years. Individuals who had contact with the NOPD were less likely than those without contact to believe there had been improvements in policing in New Orleans, that the NOPD had become a better police department, and to believe their neighbors had more confidence in the NOPD. There were higher

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 73 of 129
Page 73 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

average ratings for individuals with recent NOPD contact on items referring to fewer NOPD officers in their community, that negative publicity had made officers’ jobs more difficult, and that recordings made officers more apprehensive to use force. Especially interesting were the average ratings for items regarding resisting the NOPD, and police use of force. Individuals with recent NOPD contact were less likely than those without NOPD contact to believe that community members were more willing to resist NOPD officers and less likely to believe that use of force had increased, while they had roughly equivalent average views on NOPD excessive use of force. In sum, individuals with recent contact were less likely than those without contacts to believe the NOPD had made positive changes in all areas except for use of force. Instead, individuals with recent contact were less likely than those without contact to believe the NOPD had increased use of force in recent years.

Table 7. Mean Change Ratings by Contact
13. There have been improvements in policing in New Orleans over the past two years.
26. In the past two years, the NOPD has become a better police department.
40. When compared to 2 years ago, my neighbors have more confidence in the NOPD.
45. Over the past 2 years, community members have become more willing to resist NOPD officers.
46a. I have noticed fewer NOPD officers in my community over the past two years.
46. Negative publicity surrounding policing lately has made NOPD officers’ jobs more difficult.
47. Audio and video recordings of NOPD have made their jobs more difficult.
48. Cell phone or video recording of NOPD officers has caused officers to be more apprehensive to use force.
49. NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years.
50. Compared to two years ago, today NOPD are less likely to use excessive force.

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

2.65

2.52

2.68

2.51

2.65

2.49

2.74

2.65

2.71

2.80

2.70

2.84

2.53

2.48

2.67

2.77

2.63

2.55

2.63

2.63

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 74 of 129
Page 74 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

4. Citizens’ Perceptions of NOPD Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness

Several questions on the community survey assessed citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness (Table 8). The results for this section were somewhat mixed, but mostly positive. A majority of respondents felt that New Orleans police officers were honest (57.6%), fair (63.2%), professional (68.0%), and followed NOPD procedures (62.6%). A majority of respondents also indicated that they trusted the NOPD (53.5%), respected the NOPD (78.1%), and were confident in the NOPD (58.1%). The average rating for the statement, “I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly,” fell within the agree category (M=2.97). Finally, a majority of respondents felt that the NOPD tried to be fair when policing the community (66.2%).

A number of questions in this section received neutral or negative responses. In particular, respondents were mixed on whether NOPD officers had more integrity than other police officers (M=2.52), whether NOPD officers were racist (M=2.35), whether NOPD officers treated victims well (M=2.54), and whether the NOPD acted in ways

Table 8. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

14. Police officers in New Orleans are honest. (M=2.60)

46 (5.3) 254 (29.2) 476 (54.8)

15. Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity. (M=2.52)

42 (4.8) 299 (34.4) 395 (45.5)

16. Police officers in New Orleans are fair. (M=2.64)

47 (5.4) 226 (26.0) 527 (60.6)

17. Police officers in New Orleans are professional. (M=2.70)

35 (4.0) 203 (23.4) 565 (65.0)

18. While conducting their duties, officers follow NOPD procedures. (M=2.71)

34 (3.9) 179 (20.6) 515 (59.3)

20. Police officers in New Orleans are not

racist or biased against minorities.

84 (9.7) 345 (39.7) 303 (34.9)

(M=2.35)

21. I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly. (M=2.97)

0 (0.0) 126 (14.5) 581 (66.9)

22. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well. (M=2.54)

45 (5.2) 278 (32.0) 406 (46.7)

30. I trust the NOPD. (M=2.48)

103 (11.9) 258 (29.7) 432 (49.7)

32. I respect the NOPD. (M=2.83)

39 (4.5) 122 (14.0) 618 (71.1)

Strongly Agree N (%) 24 (2.8) 18 (2.1) 23 (2.6) 26 (3.0) 29 (3.3)
23 (2.6)
105 (12.1) 23 (2.6) 33 (3.8) 61 (7.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 75 of 129
Page 75 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

33. The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community. (M=2.70)

33 (3.8)

203 (23.4) 549 (63.2)

26 (3.0)

41. The NOPD police act in ways that are

consistent with my own moral values.

51 (5.9) 332 (38.2) 379 (43.6) 22 (2.5)

(M=2.47)

42. You should accept NOPD police

decisions because that is the proper

93 (10.7) 374 (43.0) 330 (38.0) 15 (1.7)

thing to do. (M=2.33)

43. The NOPD police provide the same

quality of service to all community

107 (12.3) 423 (48.7) 246 (28.3) 9 (1.0)

members. (M=2.20)

44. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. (M=2.57)

58 (6.7) 264 (30.4) 477 (54.9) 28 (3.2)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

consistent with residents’ moral values (M=2.47). The category, neither agree nor disagree, received a majority of responses for each of these items. A majority of respondents disagreed with statements regarding accepting NOPD police decisions (53.7%), and that the NOPD provided the same quality of service to all community members (61.0%).

The average rating for each item in Table 8 for individuals with and without recent contact with the NOPD is presented in Table 9. For most of the items related procedural justice and trustworthiness, there were lower average ratings for individuals with recent NOPD contact compared to those who did not have recent NOPD contact. However, the average rating for individuals with recent contact was roughly equivalent for items pertaining to New Orleans officers’ honesty, New Orleans officers following NOPD procedures, and expectations of fairness.

Table 9. Mean Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness Rating by Contact

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

19. Police officers in New Orleans are honest.

2.61

2.62

20. Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity.

2.63

2.47

21. Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.70

2.62

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 76 of 129
Page 76 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Mean Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness Rating by Contact

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

22. Police officers in New Orleans are professional.
23. While conducting their duties, officers follow NOPD procedures.
20. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities.
21. I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly.
22. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well.

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

2.71

2.64

2.70

2.76

2.45

2.34

2.98

2.97

2.66

2.51

30. I trust the NOPD.

2.56

2.41

32. I respect the NOPD.

2.86

2.80

33. The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community.

2.76

2.65

41. The NOPD police act in ways that are consistent with my own moral values.

2.55

2.41

42. You should accept NOPD police decisions because that is the proper thing to do.

2.51

2.20

43. The NOPD police provide the same quality of service to all community members.

2.37

2.09

44. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.

2.64

2.53

5. Citizens’ Willingness to Cooperate with the NOPD
The concept of procedural justice recognizes a link between procedural justice, trustworthiness, and individuals’ willingness to cooperate with the police. Three questions on the community survey assessed citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD (Table 10). Given, the relatively positive findings of the items concerning procedural justice and trustworthiness, it would be expected that the items regarding cooperation would receive relatively positive responses. Consistent with this expectation, the average response to all three items included in Table 10 was closest to the Agree category (M=3.06, M=3.00, M=2.78). A majority of respondents indicated a willingness to report dangerous or suspicious activities (82.7%), a willingness to call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime (83.4%), and a willingness to assist the NOPD if asked (67.9%).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 77 of 129
Page 77 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 10. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%) N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

36. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD. (M=3.06)

19 (2.2) 100 (11.5) 532 (61.2) 187 (21.5)

37. I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime. (M=3.00)

27 (3.1) 117 (13.5) 553 (63.6) 172 (19.8)

39. If asked, I would help the NOPD find

someone suspected of committing a crime. 65 (7.5) 186 (21.4) 458 (52.7) 132 (15.2)

(M=2.78)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

Following up on these items, the survey also asked respondents who were unwilling to call the NOPD why they would not call the police (Table 11). In total, 132 respondents (15.2%) indicated they would not call the NOPD if they witnessed or became aware of a crime. For these respondents, the most common reason to not call the police was because the respondent did not trust the NOPD (30.3%) or the respondent simply did not wish to get involved (32.6%). This finding further reinforces the link between the perceived trustworthiness of the police with a willingness to cooperate. Improving perceptions of the NOPD could help make their job easier by increasing the likelihood that citizens will cooperate in their investigations.

Table 11. Reasons for not calling NOPD

N

%

I do not trust the NOPD.

40

30.3

I do not want to be seen cooperating with NOPD.

24

18.2

I would fear consequences from the NOPD.

12

9.1

I simply wouldn’t want to get involved.

43

32.6

I would cooperate anonymously, for example, through Crime Stoppers.

13

9.8

Note: Percentages reflect the percentage of respondents that indicated they would not call the NOPD if they

witnessed or became aware of a crime.

Similar to previous sections, the average ratings for cooperation for individuals with and without recent police contact are presented in Table 12. Surprisingly, the average rating for individuals with recent police contact was higher across all three items than for those without recent contact. This suggests that individuals who recently had contact with the NOPD are more likely to cooperate with the police in the future.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 78 of 129
Page 78 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Mean Ratings of Cooperation by Contact

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

36. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

2.98

3.16

37. I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime.

2.95

3.11

39. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

2.73

2.86

6. Citizens’ Perceptions of NOPD Respect & Transparency

Related to perceptions of trustworthiness were three items that asked citizens for their perceptions of NOPD respect and transparency (Table 13). A majority of respondents believed the NOPD keeps the public informed (54.9%) and treats people with respect (61.4%). Responses to the item “The NOPD is open and honest when dealing with the public” were more mixed (M=2.47), with neither agree nor disagree receiving a majority of responses.

Table 13. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD respect & transparency

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%) N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

27. The NOPD keeps the public informed.

51 (5.9) 293 (33.7) 460 (52.9) 17 (2.0)

(M=2.54)

28. The NOPD is open and honest when

59 (6.8) 323 (37.2) 413 (47.5) 14 (1.6)

dealing with the public. (M=2.47)

29. The NOPD treats people with respect.

43 (4.9) 232 (26.7) 509 (58.6) 24 (2.8)

(M=2.64)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

The average ratings on the items related to NOPD’s transparency and respect for individuals with and without recent contact with the NOPD is presented in Table 14. Consistent with previous comparisons, there were lower average ratings for individuals with recent NOPD contact across all three transparency and respect items compared to those without recent contact.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 79 of 129
Page 79 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 14. Mean Ratings of Transparency and Respect by Contact

Have you interacted with a New Orleans

Police Officer during the past two years?

No

Yes

27. The NOPD keeps the public informed.

2.59

2.49

28. The NOPD is open and honest when dealing with the public.

2.55

2.37

29. The NOPD treats people with respect.

2.66

2.59

7. Citizens’ Perceptions NOPD Treatment of Minorities

A series of questions on the community survey also assessed citizens’ perceptions of NOPD treatment of minority groups. Unlike previous items, this section included a “No Opinion” option. This category is included in Table 15, but when determining the mean response, this category was treated as missing. Responses to items in this section were mostly negative. The average response to items asking about the fair treatment of the black community (M=2.16) and the Latino community (M=2.23) were closest to the disagree category. However, similar items asking about the Vietnamese community (M=2.54) and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community (M=2.48) were closer to the mid-point of the scale or a neutral assessment.

Evidence of a tense relationship between the NOPD and the black community was further supported by responses to a number of other items. A majority of respondents felt that the NOPD engaged in racial profiling (55.7%), the black community expects to be harassed by the NOPD (62.8%), and the black community does not feel the NOPD is credible (60.1%). With respect to the Latino community, the average response to the item, “Members of the New Orleans Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of deportation,” fell in the agree category (M=3.02). The average ratings for items asking about the LGBT community’s confidence in the NOPD (M=2.70) and the treatment of homeless individuals were neutral (M=2.65). Finally, a majority of respondents felt that body worn cameras reduced the likelihood of improper use of force against minorities (61.1%).

Table 15. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

No

Agree Opinion

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

51. New Orleans police officers

treat members of the Black

125 (14.4) 306 (35.2) 203 (23.4) 11 (1.3) 183 (21.1)

community fairly. (M=2.16)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 80 of 129
Page 80 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 15. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

No

Agree Opinion

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

52. New Orleans police officers

treat members of the Latino

53 (6.1) 232 (26.7) 135 (15.5) 9 (1.0) 396 (45.6)

community fairly. (M=2.23)

53. New Orleans police officers

treat members of the Vietnamese

22 (2.5) 129 (14.8) 173 (19.9) 17 (2.0) 486 (55.9)

community fairly. (M=2.54)

54. New Orleans police officers

treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

37 (4.3) 137 (15.8) 178 (20.5) 19 (2.2) 456 (52.5)

community fairly. (M=2.48)

55. New Orleans police officers engage in racial profiling. (M=2.91)

11 (1.3) 152 (17.5) 371 (42.7) 113 (13.0) 189 (21.7)

56. The NOPD has officers capable

of communicating with Spanish-

10 (1.2) 92 (10.6) 320 (36.8) 14 (1.6) 388 (44.6)

speaking victims. (M=2.78)

57. Members of the New Orleans

Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of

4 (0.5) 45 (5.2) 337 (38.8) 60 (6.9) 374 (43.0)

deportation. (M=3.02)

58. Members of the Black

community expect to be harassed

9 (1.0) 111 (12.8) 414 (47.6) 132 (15.2) 164 (18.9)

by the NOPD. (M=3.00)

59. Members of the Black

community do not believe the

3 (0.3) 102 (11.7) 434 (49.9) 89 (10.2) 203 (23.4)

NOPD is credible. (M=2.97)

60. Body worn cameras reduce the

likelihood of improper use of force towards minorities by NOPD.

25 (2.9) 131 (15.1) 464 (53.4) 86 (9.9) 117 (13.5)

(M=2.87)

61. Members of the Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community do not have confidence

11 (1.3) 101 (11.6) 173 (19.9) 29 (3.3) 501 (57.7)

in the NOPD. (M=2.70)

62. During encounters with the

NOPD, police treat the homeless

7 (0.8) 201 (23.1) 234 (26.9) 46 (5.3) 331 (38.1)

poorly. (M=2.65)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item. To

compute mean scores, no opinion is treated as missing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 81 of 129
Page 81 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

8. Citizens’ Views of the NOPD and Immigration

The last group of items on the community survey asked residents for their views of the NOPD and immigration (Table 16). As with the previous section, a “No Opinion” category was included and was included in the distribution of responses, but omitted from estimates of the average response. For all three items in this section the average response was neutral and similar percentages responded agree and disagree.

Table 16. Citizens’ views of the NOPD and immigration

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%) N (%)

63. NOPD officers ask for

immigration identification papers.

6 (0.7) 112 (12.9)

(M=2.49)

64. New Orleans police officers

question Latinos about their

6 (0.7) 106 (12.2)

immigration status. (M=2.54)

65. New Orleans police officers refer

Latinos to the U.S. Immigration and 10 (1.2) 91 (10.5)

Customs Enforcement. (M=2.46)

Agree N (%)
109 (12.5)
113 (13.0)
88 (10.1)

Strongly Agree N (%)
6 (0.7)
10 (1.2)
6 (0.7)

No Opinion N (%)
577 (66.4)
579 (66.6)
612 (70.4)

D. Community Survey Comparison (2014-2016)

1. Executive Summary

The New Orleans Office of the Consent Decree Monitor (the Monitoring Team) conducted household surveys in New Orleans, in December 2014 and January/February 2017 to assess the community’s perceptions of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). The recent community survey increased its sample size to 869 people from 549 in 2014. Overall, the demographics of these survey participants were very similar, however, more participants were born in New Orleans and owned their own home in the 2017 survey compared to the 2014 survey.

Our comparative analysis of the community surveys proceeds in three stages. The first stage assesses overall differences in citizen perceptions between 2014 and 2017. The second stage assesses racial differences in citizen perceptions in 2014 and 2017. Finally, the third stage examines how the Monitoring Team’s survey compared to a similar survey conducted by the New Orleans Crime Coalition (NOCC).

 Overall Comparisons Between 2014 and 2017



Citizens had better perceptions of their most recent contact with the

NOPD in 2017 (M=2.70) than 2014 (M=2.87)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 82 of 129
Page 82 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com



Citizens were more satisfied with the NOPD in 2017 (M=2.36) than in

2014 (M=2.23)



Citizens had higher ratings of trust in the NOPD in 2017 (M=2.64) than in

2014 (M=2.40)



Citizens were more willing to cooperate with the NOPD in 2017 (M=2.95)

than in 2014 (M=2.78)

 Racial Comparisons between 2014 and 2017



Perceptions of recent contact and overall satisfaction with the NOPD

increased equally for blacks and whites



Perceptions of trust in the NOPD and willingness to cooperate with the

NOPD increased more rapidly for blacks than whites resulting in a smaller

gap between blacks and whites perceptions of the NOPD in 2017 than in

2014

 Comparison to NOCC Survey



The New Orleans Crime Coalition’s survey shows similar trends to the

Monitoring Team survey but has consistently higher perceptions of the

NOPD

 Recommendations from comparison of NOCC and the Monitoring Team:



NOCC should continue to pursue responses from individuals with

previous contact with the police (including felons)



The Monitoring Team should collect information on police district when

collecting survey data to improve location comparisons



The Monitoring Team should continue to use multiple items to measure

trust, cooperation, satisfaction, and other important concepts to continue

having better reliability than single item measures

2. Comparative Analysis

The Monitoring Team conducted in-person surveys of New Orleans community members in December 2014 and January/February 2017 about their perceptions of the New Orleans Police

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 83 of 129
Page 83 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Department (NOPD).27 In 2014, a sample of 549 New Orleans residents was surveyed, while in 2017 a larger sample of 869 residents was surveyed. Table 1 presents the percentages of each sample that fall into demographic categories. Only percentages are presented, as differences in sample size would make comparisons of raw numbers difficult to interpret.

Roughly half of participants in both 2014 and 2017 were male and similar percentages of the sample fell into the age categories specified in the 2014 survey,28 though the 2017 sample does appear to be slightly older with higher percentages in the 55-64 category and 65 and older category. Roughly half of the participants in both surveys self-identified as black and approximately 35% of both samples self-identified as white. Similar percentages were also seen in the education and marital status responses. Key differences in the samples were seen in the percentage of respondents who were born in New Orleans, owned their own home, and had contact with the police. More participants indicated they were born in New Orleans and owned their own home in 2017 than in 2014 by a fairly wide margin (~10%). 2014 participants were more likely to have had contact with the police; an item found to be important in understanding attitudes toward the NOPD.

Table 1. Demographics
Gender Male Female
Age Less than 24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Greater than 65
Race/Ethnicity Black White Asian Hispanic Other
Education

% in 2014
49.2 48.1
5.1 24.2 20.4 18.6 15.7 12.9
50.5 37.9 1.3
2.6 3.6

% in 2017
50.3 48.7
5.4 19.3 18.5 14.5 17.5 17.6
54.8 35.6 0.6
1.0 5.2

27

Differences in the methodologies used in these surveys are not reviewed here but should be examined for

potential reasons for differences in survey results across these two surveys.

28

The 2017 survey included age as an open-ended question, so exact ages were calculated. However, the

2014 survey asked for respondents to indicate which age range they fell into. As a result, the best method of

comparison for this data was to reduce the 2017 data into the 2014 categories.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 84 of 129
Page 84 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics
Less than High School High School College Degree Graduate/Professional Degree
Marital Status Single Married Divorced Widowed Partnered
Born in New Orleans? Yes No
Own Home? Own Rent

% in 2014 10.9 46.8 25.3 12.8
40.4 33.5 11.7 5.8 4.9
62.8 33.2
47.4 44.3

% in 2017 6.1
45.0 34.2 10.8
40.4 38.8
7.2 5.8 3.3
70.2 29.8
61.7 35.6

Contact with Police?

Yes

47.9

41.4

No

52.1

58.6

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values.

Comparisons using these data are presented here for two reasons. First, the respondents share many similarities across a variety of other demographic categories. Second, the “contact with police” question itself presents problems when trying to analyze data. In the 2014 version of the survey individuals were asked if they had any contact with the police, and if so, when? In the 2017 version of the survey individuals were asked if they had any contact with the police during the past two years. To create a variable that could be compared between surveys, the 2014 responses to the “when” portion of the question were used to create a new variable that captured only those individuals who specified a date of last contact with the NOPD within the past 2 years (this is the variable presented in Table 1). Human memory is fallible and altering the way questions are asked that rely on memory can affect the way people respond to questions.29 On the one hand, creating a date for the last contact with the police may have resulted in individuals

29

There is a large body of research on how differences in the way a question is asked can cause individuals to

respond differently when the response relies on memory. For example, research has demonstrated that the

accuracy of eyewitness identification varies according to the method used for identification. It may be that

the difference in the manner the questions were asked created the differences seen here. See Steblay, N.,

Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous

lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 85 of 129
Page 85 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
underestimating how long ago they had contact with the police. On the other hand, when asked if there was contact in the last 2 years in the 2017 version, old contact may have been easier to dismiss. Although we are aware that the differences in our contact with the members of the community could have influenced their responses, the data are worth reporting.
3. 2014 and 2017 Overall Comparisons
The first set of comparisons presented in this report will focus on how the overall ratings of the entire sample compare between 2014 and 2017. As with the previous reports, this comparison starts with individuals’ ratings of their last encounter with the NOPD. In the 2014 survey, individuals were supposed to answer the questions if they had any previous contact with the NOPD.30 For the 2017 survey, these questions were only answered by individuals who indicated they had contact with the NOPD in the last 2 years. To reconcile this difference, the variable created in Table 1 to estimate individuals in the 2014 survey that had contact with the police in the last two years was used here as a criteria for inclusion in Table 2. That is, only individuals from the 2014 survey who indicated their most recent contact with the NOPD occurred in the past two years were included in Table 2.
To compare ratings of citizens’ attitudes towards the police throughout this report, mean values will be compared for key items. Mean values were created by giving a value of 1 to responses of strongly disagree, 2 to disagree, 3 to agree, and 4 to strongly agree. As a result, higher values indicate stronger agreement on average for the given item. Mean values are presented because they are easier to interpret and present than examinations of individual responses to each item. In Table 2, the mean rating is shown to be consistently higher in the 2017 survey than the 2014 survey. Individuals in the 2017 survey gave more positive ratings of the NOPD officers trustworthiness, dignity, respect, and politeness, as well as believing that the officer followed procedure and being satisfied with the officers behavior.

30

Individuals in the 2014 survey did not adhere to filter questions as well as they did in the 2017 survey. For

example, if individuals indicated they had not had any previous contact with the NOPD, they were

supposed to skip to the next section of questions. In 2017, electronic data collection (pre-loaded tablets)

forced all respondents to follow this direction. In 2014, when responses were written by the surveyor, many

individuals were asked all the questions regarding police contact, despite having no police contact.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 86 of 129
Page 86 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy.

2.67

2.84

I believe the police officer was following New Orleans Police Department procedures.

2.72

2.85

I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

2.65

2.84

The police officer treated me with dignity.

2.73

2.90

The police officer treated me with respect.

2.74

2.90

The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

2.71

2.87

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

To summarize further the differences in the 2014 and 2017, surveys scale scores were created for this table and compared across years. As with previous reports, items in the table were entered into an exploratory factor analysis to ensure that the appropriate scale structure was utilized. However, unlike with previous reports, the scale values calculated here are simple averages of responses to each item rather than regression scores.31 As expected by the examination of the items in Table 2, respondents to the 2017 survey (M=2.87) had significantly higher average scores on the recent contact scale than respondents to the 2014 survey (M=2.70).32
The next section of questions dealt with individuals’ ratings of their most recent contact with NOPD if they were stopped or questioned by the NOPD. Significant issues of non-compliance with filter questions (questions where individuals are only supposed to respond if they meet some qualifier, such as having been stopped or questioned by the NOPD) were seen in the 2014 survey when individuals continued to respond to contact questions after indicating they had not previously had contact with the NOPD. This same problem was not seen in the 2017 survey.33 Having individuals indicate when their last contact with the police occurred provided an opportunity to filter out noncompliance with the filter question for Table 2. However, there was no such opportunity for the items pertaining to individuals who were stopped or questioned. Further evidence of noncompliance with filter questions was seen in the 2014 data as an unrealistically high percentage of individuals indicating they had previous contact with the police

31

While regression scores represent a more refined approach to scale construction, a simple average score

approach was taken here because more complicated comparisons made later in the report will be more

meaningful if they remain on the four-point (strongly disagree to strongly agree) structure developed here.

This structure is abandoned for standardized scores with a mean of 0 when regression scores are utilized.

32

t(483.01)=-2.99, p<0.01

33

See footnote 4.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 87 of 129
Page 87 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

also indicated they had been stopped or questioned by the police during this encounter (71.1%).34 As a result, comparisons of responses to these questions are nearly impossible to interpret. The mean responses to these items are presented in Appendix G for those curious about what the comparisons might look like despite the trouble in interpreting them but are not included in the main body of this report. These items should not be used to support any conclusions or inferences about the NOPD, and are presented to demonstrate the transparency of the Monitoring Team.

A series of questions on the survey also asked for citizens’ overall satisfaction with the NOPD (Table 3). On the 2017 survey, citizens were more likely to believe that corruption in the NOPD is low, that past NOPD scandals did not reflect current practices, and that they were satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs. While these items all reflected positive change, individuals in 2017 were also more likely to believe that there was more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas. Finally, the mean ratings of items regarding NOPD officers responding in a timely manner and the ability of the NOPD to impact crime rates remained relatively stable from 2014 to 2017.

Table 3. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD
Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of New Orleans. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD.
I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.

2014 Mean 2.22 3.17
2.43
2.29

2017 Mean 2.35 3.41
2.58
2.50

When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.

2.02

2.06

Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime.

2.63

2.68

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the

question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Exploratory factor analysis of the items in Table 3 showed three factors. The questions regarding police presence in the French Quarter and the impact of the NOPD on crime loaded on their own factors, with all items loading on a single, overall satisfaction factor. Participants in the 2017

34

Compared to 33.6% in 2017. Note that if this were not the result of noncompliance it would mean that it

was more than twice as likely that contact with the police in 2014 was the result of being stopped or

questioned than in 2014.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 88 of 129
Page 88 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

survey (M=2.36) had higher overall ratings of satisfaction than 2014 participants (M=2.23).35 Participants in the 2017 survey (M=3.41) were also more likely to agree that police presence was greater in the French Quarter than other areas than the 2014 participants (M=3.17).36 Finally, as seen in Table 3, ratings of the NOPD’s impact on crime was stable from 2014 (M=2.63) to 2017 (M=2.67).37

Table 4. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

Police officers in New Orleans are honest.

2.47

2.60

Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity.

2.21

2.52

Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.41

2.64

Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.42

2.70

Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities.

2.29

2.35

I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly.

2.50

2.97

New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well.

2.34

2.54

I trust the NOPD.

2.38

2.48

I respect the NOPD.

2.71

2.83

I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.

2.35

2.57

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Table 4 presents a series of items that asked about citizens’ perceptions of the NOPD’s level of procedural justice and trustworthiness. Consistent with the analyses presented above, 2017 averages for the items in Table 4 were consistently higher than the averages for 2014. Exploratory factor analysis supported treating these items as a single scale regarding trust in the NOPD. Summarizing the items in the scale further supported the conclusion that 2017 participants (M=2.64) had greater trust in the NOPD than 2014 participants (M=2.40).38

Finally, Table 5 presents the results of three items that asked about willingness to cooperate with the NOPD. Again, there was consistently stronger agreement with each item in 2017 than in 2014. An average scale summarizing these items allowed for a clear conclusion that participants in 2017 (M=2.95) were more willing to cooperate with the NOPD than participants in 2014 (M=2.78).39

35

t(970.35)=-4.00, p<0.01

36 t(936.24)=-6.17, p<0.01

37 t(1001.1)=-1.46, p=0.14

38 t(777.84)=-7.04, p<0.01

39 t(1024.1)=-5.04, p<0.01

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 89 of 129
Page 89 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

2.94

3.06

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed or became aware of a crime.1

2.80

3.00

If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

2.58

2.78

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive

issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

1This item was reverse coded in 2014, but the mean here has been adjusted for comparison with the 2017 item.

One last set of questions had overlap in their content. These questions asked for citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups. However, the 2017 survey allowed individuals to select “No Opinion” in response to the item, while the 2014 survey only included options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. As a result, it is possible that the average rating will be altered as only individuals with strong opinions will have answered these items. An examination of the data did, in fact, reveal that significantly more respondents answered these questions in 2014 than in 2017. There is no clear method of overcoming this difference in response categories, so these items are not presented here. They have been included in Appendix G for those curious about what the analysis would look like. As with the stopped or questioned items, none of these items should be used to draw conclusions or inferences about the NOPD.

4. Racial Comparisons between 2014 and 2017

The next set of comparisons examined differences in perceptions of the NOPD by race from 2014 to 2017. For example, Table 6 presents the difference in the average rating for black participants and the average rating for white participants in 2017 and 2014 for each item. This value was calculated by subtracting the mean for black participants on a given item from the mean for white participants on the same item. Put another way, the 2014 mean for the first item should be interpreted as: In 2014, white participants had an average rating 0.29 units higher than black participants on the item “When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy.” This interpretation is a bit complex but serves a more general purpose.

Addendums to the Community Survey Reports in 2014 and 2017 both suggested that white citizens viewed the NOPD more positively than black citizens.40 The tables presented in this section are intended to examine whether or not the gap in perceptions between white citizens and

40

The 2014 report compared whites to racial minorities, however, the racial minority category was

overwhelmingly made up of blacks. Furthermore, though blacks are a racial minority in the United States,

they actually make up greater than 50% of both the 2014 and 2017 samples. This likely makes their

experience qualitatively different from other racial minorities in New Orleans. As a result, the comparisons

presented here utilize the method presented in the 2017 report where blacks are compared to whites.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 90 of 129
Page 90 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

black citizens has increased or decreased. Each table is followed up by examining the scale scores presented above in a similar manner. These analyses show whether the gap has narrowed or widened over time in relation to the original scale. For example, did both values increase and the gap widen or did only white values increase which widened the gap?

To begin these comparisons, Table 6 presents the racial differences for the items pertaining to an individual’s most recent contact with the NOPD (see Table 2). The gap between racial perceptions was greater in 2017 for the first item regarding officer trustworthiness. The gap between racial perceptions was smaller in 2017 for items pertaining to following NOPD procedures, satisfaction with officer behavior, and officer politeness. Items regarding respect and dignity had a relatively stable gap from 2014 to 2017.

Table 6. Differences in perceptions of most recent contact by race

2014 Mean

When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy.

0.29

I believe the police officer was following New Orleans Police Department procedures.

0.45

I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

0.44

2017 Mean 0.51 0.37 0.38

The police officer treated me with dignity.

0.43

0.42

The police officer treated me with respect.

0.37

0.38

The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

0.40

0.34

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Figure 1 utilizes the scale score produced previously to compare changes in perceptions of contact from 2014 to 2017 to examine these differences by race. The red line and square points represent the average perceptions of blacks while the blue line with triangle points represents the average perceptions of whites. The figure shows roughly parallel lines increasing but with a stable gap over time. This suggests that both whites and blacks have improved perceptions of recent police contact similarly.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 91 of 129 Page 91 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 1.

Table 7 presents similar information to Figure 1, but also provides estimates of the difference between the scale score for whites and blacks. These values reinforce the conclusion that the overall gap between whites and blacks regarding perceptions of their most recent contact with the NOPD was stable from 2014 (0.42) to 2017 (0.41).

Table 7. Average Contact Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

2.48

2.90

2017 Rating

2.69

3.10

Difference
0.42 0.41

The next set of questions asked individuals for their overall satisfaction with the NOPD (Table 8). As with the items pertaining to recent contact with NOPD, items in this group varied with some items having a stable gap, some having the gap narrow, and some having the gap widen. However, the previous exploratory factor analysis conducted on these items revealed that they did not load on a single factor. As a result, a series of figures and tables are presented below to get a better idea of how racial differences changed from 2014 to 2017.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 92 of 129
Page 92 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Differences in satisfaction with the NOPD by race
Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of New Orleans. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD.
I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.

2014 Mean 0.02 -0.19
0.08
0.38

2017 Mean 0.14 -0.21
0.08
0.26

When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.

0.34

0.21

Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime.

-0.31

-0.32

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive

issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Figure 2 presents average satisfaction rating by race and year – an examination of overall satisfaction with the NOPD. Similar to Figure 1 it shows a stable increase across racial categories. While satisfaction with the NOPD increased from 2014 to 2017, this increase was similar across racial groups. This maintained the gap in perceptions of the police between blacks and whites.

Figure 2.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 93 of 129
Page 93 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The data in Table 9 further supports this conclusion by presenting the values in the scaled overall satisfaction measure.

Table 9. Average Satisfaction Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

2.14

2.35

2017 Rating

2.30

2.49

Difference
0.21 0.19

Figure 3 and Table 10 present the average rating for the item regarding greater police presence in the French Quarter. Similar to the previous examinations, the gap between blacks and whites remained stable over time despite an overall increase in individuals’ agreement that there was greater police presence in the French Quarter.

Figure 3.

Table 10. Average French Quarter Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

3.23

3.04

2017 Rating

3.50

3.29

Difference
-0.19 -0.21

Figure 4 and Table 11 present the average ratings for the item regarding the NOPD’s impact on crime. As seen in Table 4, citizens’ perceptions of the NOPD’s ability to impact crime remained relatively stable from 2014 to 2017. These ratings were also stable by race according to Figure 4 and Table 11.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 94 of 129 Page 94 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 4.

Table 11. Average Effectiveness Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

2.75

2.44

2017 Rating

2.81

2.49

Difference
-0.31 -0.32

The next set of questions asked citizens for their perceptions of the NOPD’s procedural justice and trustworthiness (Table 12). Most of the items in this category had a smaller difference by race in 2017 than 2014. One notable exception was the item, “Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity,” where the difference increased slightly. This question, however, is qualitatively different from other questions because it asks respondents to compare the NOPD to other agencies rather than simply rating the NOPD’s integrity.

Table 12. Differences in trust in the NOPD by race
Police officers in New Orleans are honest. Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity. Police officers in New Orleans are fair. Police officers in New Orleans are professional. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities. I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well. I trust the NOPD.

2014 Mean 0.49 0.06 0.36 0.37
0.09
0.57 0.25 0.51

2017 Mean 0.31 0.09 0.27 0.27
0.02
0.15 0.06 0.40

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 95 of 129
Page 95 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Differences in trust in the NOPD by race

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

I respect the NOPD.

0.23

0.18

I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.

0.42

0.24

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive

issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Figure 5 and Table 13 present the scale score for trust in the NOPD by race and year. Unlike previous examinations, this analysis shows a narrowing of the gap. That is, both whites’ and blacks’ trust in the NOPD increased from 2014 to 2017, but blacks’ had a larger increase creating a smaller difference between whites and blacks in 2017.

Figure 5.

Table 13. Average Trust Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

2.23

2.58

2017 Rating

2.58

2.76

Difference
0.35 0.18

Finally, the last set of questions asked individuals about their willingness to cooperate with the NOPD (Table 14). The gap between blacks and whites decreased for items pertaining to a willingness to report dangerous or suspicious activity and a willingness to call the NOPD if aware of a crime. The gap slightly widened for the item pertaining to helping the NOPD find someone suspected of a crime.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 96 of 129
Page 96 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 14. Differences in willingness to cooperate by race

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

0.49

0.26

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed or became aware of a crime.1

0.53

0.32

If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

0.48

0.54

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied slightly between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive

issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

1This item was reverse coded in 2014, but the mean here has been adjusted for comparison with the 2017 item.

Figure 6 and Table 15 further investigate this relationship and come to a similar conclusion as the analysis of trust. Figure 6 shows two lines, which both increase, but a narrowing gap. Table 14 shows a difference decreasing from 0.51 in 2014 to 0.37 in 2017. Thus, citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD improved from 2014 to 2017 with blacks’ willingness to cooperate increasing at a greater rate than whites. This again suggests that racial tensions with the NOPD are decreasing.

Figure 6.

Table 15. Average Cooperation Rating by Race and Year

Black Mean

White Mean

2014 Rating

2.56

3.07

2017 Rating

2.80

3.17

Difference
0.51 0.37

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 97 of 129
Page 97 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

5. Comparison to NOCC Survey
In addition to the Monitoring Team’s survey of New Orleans community members, the New Orleans Crime Coalition (NOCC) also conducts a survey of New Orleans community members regarding their interactions with the police. Importantly, the NOCC survey does not include nearly as wide of a variety of questions regarding the NOPD as the Monitoring Team’s survey, though it is conducted with more regularity (at first every 6 months, more recently annually). Additionally, the NOCC survey is conducted as a phone interview targeting both cell phones and landlines while the Monitoring Team’s survey is conducted in person. This likely leads to a higher response rate for the Monitoring Team’s survey, though no data on the response rate for the NOCC survey was found. Finally, the NOCC survey previously omitted any individual who had committed a felony from their survey. This is not recommended for the Monitoring Team, as individuals who have committed crimes are most likely to have contact with the NOPD. Thus, their perceptions of the NOPD are critical to any evaluation of the NOPD. The NOCC since has changed this policy and the most recent version of the NOCC survey included felons in its sample (albeit, only 1% of the respondents indicated they had been convicted of a felony).
To examine the differences between these two surveys a number of items were identified for comparison on two versions of the NOCC survey. The NOCC survey from August of 2016 (the most recent version) was compared to the 2017 Monitoring Team survey and the NOCC survey from February 2015 was identified as being closest in time to the Monitoring Team survey taken in December 2014. To begin the comparisons, the demographics of gender, age, race, and education were examined. Gender, age, and race all had comparable results across the Monitoring Team and NOCC surveys. Education was slightly more problematic, as the Monitoring Team survey had a less highly educated sample. Over 50% of participants in 2014 and 2017 had a high school diploma or less. In the most recent NOCC survey this percentage was 31%, and in the February 2015 version this percentage was 33%. It is difficult to determine which of these is more accurate as the U.S. Census Bureau only provides information on education for individuals over 25, whereas the NOCC and Monitoring Team surveys target individuals 18 and over.
A small number of substantive items were also identified for comparison. The NOCC survey asked a question regarding satisfaction with the New Orleans Police Department, which was compared to the Monitoring Team item, “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.” The NOCC also asked if the NOPD police culture had improved over the past few years, which can be compared to the 2017 Monitoring Team item, “In the past two years, the NOPD has become a better police department.” The NOCC asked if individuals were satisfied with the NOPD’s honesty and integrity, which can be compared to the Monitoring Team item, “Police officers in New Orleans are honest.”41 Finally, the NOCC asked individuals if they were satisfied with the NOPD’s response times which can be compared to the Monitoring Team item,

41

The integrity question was not utilized because the Monitoring Team version compares the NOPD to other

agencies, while the NOCC item and the Monitoring Team honesty item just ask for perceptions of the

NOPD.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 98 of 129
Page 98 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.” These are imperfect comparisons but represent the best comparisons that can be made.
Regarding overall satisfaction, both the NOCC and the Monitoring Team surveys showed increases in citizen satisfaction from the 2014/2015 versions to the 2016/2017 versions. However, the Monitoring Team respondents were much less satisfied with the NOPD. For example, in comparing the most recent versions of the surveys, the NOCC found 64% of respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with the NOPD. The Monitoring Team survey found 51% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.42 69% of respondents to the NOCC survey in 2016 indicated they believed the NOPD’s police subculture had somewhat/much improved over the past few years. This compares to the 59% of respondents to the Monitoring Team survey in 2017 who believed the NOPD had become a better police department.
In examining the honesty of NOPD officers, 68% of NOCC respondents in 2016 indicated they were very/somewhat satisfied with the honesty and integrity of New Orleans Police officers, while 58% of Monitoring Team respondents in 2017 indicated they agreed/strongly agreed that police officers in New Orleans are honest. Both surveys showed sizeable increases in perceptions of honesty from 2014/2015 to 2016/2017. Finally, 47% of NOCC respondents in 2016 were somewhat/very satisfied with police response times in New Orleans. Only 31% of Monitoring Team respondents in 2017 agreed/strongly agreed that NOPD officers respond in a timely manner. In both the NOCC surveys and the Monitoring Team surveys these ratings of timeliness in NOPD responses remained stable over time.
In conclusion, both the NOCC surveys and the Monitoring Team surveys show similar trends in citizen perceptions of the NOPD. However, the Monitoring Team surveys appear to show consistently lower perceptions of the NOPD. The source of this difference is difficult to determine. It could be differences in methodology (phone vs. in-person interviews) that affect response rate or the education level of the sample which provided evidence that the Monitoring Team survey reaches a less educated group of respondents. Still, there are a number of lessons to take away from an examination of these two surveys. First, the NOCC should continue to attempt to target individuals who have had contact with the NOPD – including felons. Second, the NOCC does a much better job of obtaining data on the location of their respondents. The NOCC collects the police district the respondent resides in as part of its survey. For the Monitoring Team, these data have to be calculated using the neighborhood data that was collected in 2017 (only) or the zip code (2014). This creates a very imperfect measure of how different police districts are doing with community relations. Finally, the Monitoring Team collects much more detailed information through a variety of items. Though time-consuming and

42

Differences in methodology make these comparisons difficult as the response categories are qualitatively

different, but comparisons are still made here because the Monitoring Team consistently has lower ratings

than the NOCC survey. Additionally, the use of telephones may alter the sample of respondents and/or

responses. Thus, these comparisons are likely an underestimate of the difference in perceptions between

these two surveys.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 99 of 129 Page 99 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com expensive, collecting data on multiple items that deal with trustworthiness, willingness to cooperate, satisfaction with the police, immigration policies, and other areas provide a more consistent and comprehensive measure of a concept. The NOCC’s methodology – which likely takes less time and is less expensive – only includes a single measure for most concepts, making the measure less reliable.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 100 of 129
Page 100 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the survey of NOPD officers suggests continued progress by the NOPD, while offering additional guidance for ongoing improvements. In general, NOPD officers reported positive attitudes about the work environment, quality of community relations, and recent improvements made by NOPD. A common reason provided for joining NOPD included a desire to help the community become a safer place and to help people. A majority of officers reported a potential lack of understanding from the community about the problems NOPD officers face and unfairness perceived in the conduct of internal Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) investigations. Officers believe their supervisors are good leaders, are taking the Department in the right direction, and treat fellow officers fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
In general, detainees’ negative ratings on items, such as trustworthiness and confidence in the NOPD, were consistent even when using different framings. On the whole, detainees reported negative ratings of the NOPD, though their responses show slight improvement from prior years. Additionally, on average, detainees did not believe the NOPD treated the black or Latino community fairly, and a majority believed NOPD officers engage in racial profiling. The findings from the survey of detainees provide insights into changes in perception over time as stated by a community member who came into contact with an NOPD officer during his or her arrest.
Among respondents to the Community Survey, overall perceptions of procedural justice and fairness were somewhat positive. For example, a majority of respondents felt New Orleans police officers were honest, fair, professional, and followed NOPD procedures. A majority of respondents indicated they were confident in the NOPD. In addition, a majority of respondents felt that the NOPD tried to be fair when policing the community. In assessing overall satisfaction with the department, slightly more respondents disagreed that, “Corruption in the New Orleans police department is low;” most respondents did not agree that the NOPD responds in a timely manner; and a majority of respondents agreed that the NOPD has little impact on crime. In contrast, there was a neutral average response regarding satisfaction with the way NOPD officers do their jobs and a belief that past scandals are not representative of current practices.
The survey of the local New Orleans community is biennial, intended to track progress over time. Compared to the baseline survey conducted in 2014, respondents had better perceptions of their most recent contact with the NOPD, were more satisfied with the department, had higher ratings of trust and reported being more willing to cooperate with NOPD. Residents with recent contact with the NOPD generally reported the NOPD officer was trustworthy, followed NOPD procedures, treated the individual with dignity and respect, and was polite. Additionally, a large majority of citizens were satisfied with how the NOPD officer behaved during the interaction. Findings also suggest, however, that while some individuals recently stopped or questioned had neutral perceptions of the NOPD, others reported being dissatisfied with their treatment by the NOPD.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 101 of 129 Page 101 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Responses may indicate an ongoing strained relationship between the NOPD and the black community: A majority of respondents felt that the NOPD engaged in racial profiling, felt the black community expects to be harassed by the NOPD, and that the black community did not see the NOPD as credible. With respect to the Latino community, the average response to the item, “Members of the New Orleans Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of deportation,” fell in the agree category. The average ratings for items asking about the LGBT community’s confidence in the NOPD and the treatment of homeless individuals were neutral. Broadly, respondents felt that body worn cameras reduced the likelihood of improper use of force against minorities.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 102 of 129 Page 102 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com X. APPENDIXES
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 103 of 129
Page 103 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

A. Appendix A: Police Officer Survey Distribution

District/Platoon
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 8C 8DAYBEATS43 FOB Staff ISB Morning Sex Crimes Academy PIB Supt Recruitment Compliance PIB Academy(etc.) TOTAL

Date
11/21 11/16 11/25 11/22 11/21 11/16 11/22 11/21 11/17 11/23 11/23 11/18 11/22 11/17 11/21 11/17 11/16 11/20 11/21 11/16 11/22 11/18 11/22 11/22 11/18 11/16
11/17
11/16 11/16 11/21 11/21 11/22 12/12‐20

Surveys Administered
9 7 6 3 6 7 5 7 8 12 0 8 4 9 9 15 9 8 10 9 6 6 0 11 12 9 12 6 12 16 4 9 5 13 51 281

43

“8DAYBEATS” is a unit that goes out in the 8th district during the day in a certain area. “ISB Morning” denotes

investigations and support bureau detectives available during a morning shift.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 104 of 129
Page 104 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

B. Appendix B: Police Officer Survey Comparison Data

Table D-1. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 1: “Police Work and Your Working Environment”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly Agree (4)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
1. Generally, civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M = 2.75)

33 (7.3)

89 (19.8)

260 (57.9)

46 (10.2)

2. Generally, in my District, my fellow officers treat me with respect. (M = 3.36)

6 (1.3)

13 (2.9)

231 (51.4)

179 (39.9)

3. Generally, in my District, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M = 3.24)

14 (3.1)

34 (7.6)

215 (47.9)

164 (36.5)

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M = 2.50)

63 (14.0)

134 (29.8)

194 (43.2)

43 (9.6)

5. I receive training from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 2.49)

52 (11.6)

148 (33.0)

205 (45.7)

31 (6.9)

6. I receive quality equipment from the Police Department that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 1.87)

162 (36.1)

178 (39.6)

86 (19.2)

9 (2.0)

Very bad (1)

Somewhat bad (2)

Somewhat good (3)

Very good (4)

8. Overall, how would you rate the relationships among the racial and ethnic groups in NOPD? (M = 2.86)

31 (6.9)

82 (18.3)

242 (53.9)

78 (17.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M). Survey question #7 is not included in this table because it featured different response categories.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 105 of 129
Page 105 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-2. 2016 Responses to Section I: “Your Working Environment”

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%) N (%)

N (%)

7. Civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M=3.05)

13 (4.6) 29 (10.3) 147 (52.3)

Strongly Agree N (%)
69 (24.6)

8. In my district, my fellow officers treat me with respect. (M=3.45)

3 (1.1) 9 (3.2) 121 (43.1) 134 (47.7)

9. In my district, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M=3.43)

6 (2.1) 12 (4.3) 113 (40.2) 140 (49.8)

10. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M=3.08)

9 (3.2) 49 (17.4) 122 (43.4) 88 (31.3)

11. I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. (M=3.03)

8 (2.9) 46 (16.4) 146 (52.0) 71 (25.3)

12. I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. (M=2.46)

42 (15.0) 95 (33.8) 100 (35.6) 34 (12.1)

Very Bad Bad

Good

Very Good

8. Overall, within the NOPD, how would you

describe the quality of relationships among differing racial and ethnic groups?

4 (1.4) 26 (9.3) 167 (59.4) 69 (24.6)

(M=3.13)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 106 of 129
Page 106 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-3. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 2: “Managers and Supervisors”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly Agree (4)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
9. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of gender. (M = 2.79)

25 (5.6)

103 (22.9)

244 (54.3)

63 (14.0)

10. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of gender. (M = 2.62)
11. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.79)
12. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of their race/ethnicity. (M = 2.68)
13. Most officers treat other officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation. (M = 2.87)
14. Most superiors treat officers the same regardless of their sexual orientation.(M = 2.85)
15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work.(M = 2.97)
16. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M = 3.24)
17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of working. (M = 2.87)
18. My district/division commander has improved relations with the community in which I work. (M = 2.91)
19. My district/division commander is a good leader. (M = 3.04)
20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. (M = 1.73)

42 (9.4) 24 (5.3) 37 (8.2) 21 (4.7) 22 (4.9) 33 (7.3) 11 (2.4) 44 (9.8) 25 (5.6) 33 (7.3) 225 (50.1)

134 (29.8) 98 (21.8) 125 (27.8) 81 (18.0) 90 (20.0) 69 (15.4) 44 (9.8) 64 (14.3) 61 (13.6) 43 (9.6) 110 (24.5)

203 (45.2) 258 (57.5) 211 (47.0) 266 (59.2) 253 (56.3) 210 (46.8) 206 (45.9) 207 (46.1) 223 (49.7) 211 (47.0) 61 (13.6)

54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 61 (13.6) 67 (14.9) 68 (15.1) 121 (26.9) 172 (38.3) 99 (22.0) 75 (16.7) 124 (27.6) 25 (5.6)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 107 of 129
Page 107 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-4. 2016 Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

21. Officers in my district treat other

officers of differing genders the same.

4 (1.4) 26 (9.3) 134 (47.7)

(M=3.24)

Strongly Agree N (%)
95 (33.8)

22. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing genders the same. (M=3.20)

4 (1.4) 31 (11.0) 132 (47.0) 91 (32.4)

23. Within NOPD officers treat other officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M=3.10)

7 (2.5) 41 (14.6) 131 (46.6) 81 (28.8)

24. Within NOPD supervisors treat officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M=3.17)

6 (2.1) 29 (10.3) 138 (49.1) 85 (30.3)

25. Officers in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same. (M=3.22)

6 (2.1) 21 (7.5) 143 (50.9) 90 (32.0)

26. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientation the same. (M=3.24)

9 (3.2) 17 (6.1) 138 (49.1) 97 (34.5)

27. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work. (M=3.30)

7 (2.5) 23 (8.2)

125 (44.5)

118 (42.0)

28. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M=3.25)

6 (2.1) 28 (10.0) 130 (46.3)

109 (38.8)

29. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of thinking. (M=3.12)

13 (4.6) 33 (11.7) 123 (43.8) 91 (32.4)

30. My district/division commander is trying to improve NOPD relations with the community. (M=3.33)

10 (3.6) 14 (5.0)

115 (40.9)

121 (43.1)

31. My district/division commander is I good leader. (M=3.32)

11 (3.9) 21 (7.5)

100 (35.6)

124 (44.1)

32. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. (M=3.22)

10 (3.6) 25 (8.9)

120 (42.7)

102 (36.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the

item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 108 of 129
Page 108 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-5. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 3: “Personnel and Management Systems”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly Agree (4)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M = 2.25)

95 (21.2)

141 (31.4)

175 (39.0)

14 (3.1)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M = 1.85)

183 (40.8)

146 (32.5)

77 (17.1)

20 (4.5)

24. The investigations now conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair. (M = 1.86)

170 (37.9)

154 (34.3)

84 (18.7)

13 (2.9)

25. The way my Commander administers discipline is fair. (M = 2.88)

29 (6.5)

58 (12.9)

250 (55.7)

66 (14.7)

26. I understand clearly what type of behavior will result in discipline. (M = 3.06)

30 (6.7)

63 (14.0)

188 (41.9)

147 (32.7)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake. (M = 3.20)

24 (5.3)

69 (15.4)

134 (29.8)

204 (45.4)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M = 3.12)

11 (2.4)

65 (14.5)

207 (46.1)

139 (31.0)

29. My career has been negatively affected by civilian complaints. (M = 2.19)

104 (23.2)

192 (42.8)

75 (16.7)

55 (12.2)

30. The complaint system makes the Department more accountable to the public. (M = 2.41)

72 (16.0)

144 (32.1)

165 (36.7)

40 (8.9)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 109 of 129
Page 109 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-6. 2016 Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M=2.71)

18 (6.4) 60 (21.4) 148 (52.7) 24 (8.5)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M=2.13)

83 (29.5) 80 (28.5) 77 (27.4) 20 (7.1)

24. The investigations that are conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair. (M=2.31)

64 (22.8) 79 (28.1) 85 (30.3) 29 (10.3)

25. If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair. (M=3.15)

11 (3.9) 17 (6.1) 150 (53.4) 76 (27.1)

26. As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action. (M=3.32)

4 (1.4) 17 (6.1) 136 (48.4) 110 (39.2)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake. (M=3.18)

12 (4.3) 44 (15.7) 99 (35.2) 116 (41.3)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M=3.17)

5 (1.8) 49 (17.4) 104 (37.0) 104 (37.0)

29. My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints. (M=2.18)

62 (22.1) 119 (42.4) 52 (18.5) 29 (10.3)

30. The civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable to the public. (M=2.47)

38 (13.5) 87 (31.0) 107 (38.1) 26 (9.3)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 110 of 129
Page 110 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-7. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 4: “Community Policing and Police/Community Relations”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (3)

Strongly Agree (4)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
33. Officers in my district are respected by residents in the community. (M = 2.61)
35. The manner in which I interact with civilians influences the way the community perceives NOPD. (M = 3.38)
36. Law enforcement strategies in my district negatively affect community relations. (M = 2.22)
39. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M = 2.61)
40. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M = 2.82)
47. NOPD today brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law. (M = 3.07)
51. Residents in the community I work in trust the NOPD. (M = 2.45)
52. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services. (M = 2.17)

31 (6.9) 5 (1.1)
40 (8.9) 48 (10.7) 41 (9.1) 14 (3.1)
43 (9.6) 104 (23.2)

114 (25.4)

243 (54.1)

17 (3.8)

32 (7.1)

180 (40.1) 200 (44.5)

242 (53.9)

86 (19.2)

19 (4.2)

109 (24.3)

171 (38.1)

56 (12.5)

89 (19.8) 43 (9.6)

188 (41.9) 250 (55.7)

81 (18.0) 99 (22.0)

148 (33.0)

186 (41.4)

16 (3.6)

139 (31.0)

131 (29.2)

21 (4.7)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 111 of 129
Page 111 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-7. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 4: “Community Policing and Police/Community Relations”

Almost never (1)

Only some of time (2)

Most of the time (3)

Always (4)

43. The officers in my district/division treat all individuals (regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other affiliation) equally. (M = 3.12)

14 (3.1) Poor (1)

66 (14.7)

187 (41.6) 142 (31.6)

Fair (2)

Good (3) Excellent (4)

41. Overall, the services of the police in New Orleans are (M = 2.20)

103 (22.9) Very badly (1)

153 (34.1)
Somewhat badly (2)

142 (31.6)

22 (4.9)

Somewhat well (3)

Very well (4)

48. Overall, how would you say that racial and ethnic groups in New Orleans are getting along with one other these days? (M = 2.67)

38 (8.5)

88 (19.6)

255 (56.8)

25 (5.6)

Note: Questions are not in the same order as the survey to allow for groupings of response categories. Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 112 of 129
Page 112 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-8. 2016 Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community

Relations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

31. Community residents respect

police officers in my district.

14 (5.0) 41 (14.6) 152 (54.1) 38 (13.5)

(M=2.87)

33. My interactions with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD. (M=3.34)

2 (0.7) 16 (5.7) 127 (45.2) 104 (37.0)

34. Law enforcement strategies in my district positively impact relations with the community. (M=3.13)

4 (1.4) 30 (10.7) 136 (48.4) 69 (24.6)

35. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M=3.06)

11 (3.9) 36 (12.8) 108 (38.4) 72 (25.6)

36. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M=3.06)

12 (4.3) 37 (13.2) 114 (40.6) 75 (26.7)

42. NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law. (M=3.29)
45. Residents in my district trust the NOPD. (M=2.80)
46. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services that are provided there. (M=2.70)

1 (0.4) 11 (3.9) 162 (57.7) 89 (31.7) 8 (2.9) 52 (18.5) 163 (58.0) 20 (7.1) 25 (8.9) 53 (18.9) 133 (47.3) 30 (10.7)

Very Bad

Bad

Good Very Good

37. Overall, the NOPD provides services that are: (M=3.11)

3 (1.1) 17 (6.1) 189 (67.3) 53 (18.9)

43. Overall, within the New Orleans

community, how would you

describe the quality of

5 (1.8) 37 (13.2) 183 (65.1) 35 (12.5)

relationships among differing

racial and ethnic groups? (M=2.95)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 113 of 129
Page 113 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-9. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 5: “Expectations about the Police Role”

Response categories:

Not Important At All (1)
N (%)

Not Important
(2)
N (%)

Not So Important
(3)
N (%)

Important (4)
N (%)

Very Important
(5)
N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
53. Testifying in court. (M = 4.61)
54. Handling drunk driving offenders. (M = 4.45)
55. Obtaining statements from witnesses. (M = 4.67)
56. Making arrests. (M = 4.10)
57. Dealing with domestic disputes. (M = 4.29)
58. Working with community to make
neighborhoods safer. (M = 4.57)
59. Responding to calls for service. (M = 4.57)
60. Talking to civilians to help identify problems. (M = 4.50)
61. Dealing with street crime. (M = 4.64)
62. Completing criminal offense reports. (M = 4.47)
63. Conducting foot patrol. (M = 3.55)
64. Providing crime prevention education to the public.(M = 4.18)
65. Working with juveniles. (M = 4.24)
66. Conducting drug raids. (M = 4.16)
67. Maintaining crowd control. (M = 4.27)
68. Stopping and searching suspects. (M = 3.99)
69. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches. (M = 4.61)
70. Patrolling the streets. (M = 4.57)
71. General patrol duties. (M = 4.47)
72. General traffic duties. (M = 3.92)
73. Controlling traffic. (M = 3.85)
74. Issuing traffic tickets. (M = 3.48)

3 (0.7) 3 (0.7)
1 (0.2)
6 (1.3) 3 (0.7) 1 (0.2)
3 (0.7) 0
0 0
18 (4.0) 3 (0.7)
5 (1.1) 5 (1.1) 3 (0.7) 7 (1.6)
1 (0.2)
2 (0.4) 3 (0.7) 4 (0.9) 5 (1.1) 11 (2.4)

3 (0.7) 4 (0.9)

10 (2.2) 26 (5.8)

117 (26.1) 274 (61.0) 163 (36.3) 235 (52.3)

0

7 (1.6) 123 (27.4) 299 (66.6)

7 (1.6) 5 (1.1) 1 (0.2)

74 (16.5) 46 (10.2) 14 (3.1)

194 (43.2) 187 (41.6) 151 (33.6)

147 (32.7) 187 (41.6) 261 (58.1)

2 (0.4) 3 (0.7)

10 (2.2) 20 (4.5)

145 (32.3) 268 (59.7) 166 (37.0) 240 (53.5)

0 3 (0.7)

8 (1.8) 23 (5.1)

136 (30.3) 284 (63.3) 172 (38.3) 232 (51.7)

38 (8.5) 140 (31.2) 152 (33.9) 79 (17.6) 11 (2.4) 51 (11.4) 202 (45.0) 161 (35.9)

6 (1.3) 9 (2.0) 5 (1.1) 11 (2.4)

54 (12.0) 56 (12.5) 45 (10.0) 76 (16.9)

181 (40.3) 197 (43.9) 199 (44.3) 215 (47.9)

182 (40.5) 159 (35.4) 178 (39.6) 115 (25.6)

3 (0.7) 14 (3.1) 127 (28.3) 281 (62.6)

2 (0.4) 2 (0.4) 12 (2.7) 15 (3.3) 32 (7.1)

10 (2.2) 14 (3.1) 81 (18.0) 96 (21.4) 172 (38.3)

148 (33.0) 181 (40.3) 247 (55.0) 231 (51.4) 160 (35.6)

265 (59.0) 227 (50.6) 82 (18.3) 78 (17.4) 49 (10.9)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 114 of 129
Page 114 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-9. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 5: “Expectations about the Police Role”

Response categories:

Not

Not

Not So

Important Important Important

At All (1)

(2)

(3)

Important (4)

Very Important
(5)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

75. Handling neighborhood disputes. (M = 4.16)

4 (0.9)

5 (1.1) 40 (8.9) 247 (55.0) 128 (28.5)

76. Controlling the crowds at public events. (M = 4.36)

6 (1.3)

7 (1.6) 30 (6.7) 167 (37.2) 217 (48.3)

77. Dealing with noisy parties. (M = 3.34)

17 (3.8) 34 (7.6) 194 (43.2) 143 (31.8) 35 (7.8)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 115 of 129
Page 115 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-10. 2016 Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not Important

Not So Important

Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

47. Testifying in court (M=3.61)

1 (0.4)

19 (6.8) 66 (23.5)

48. Handling drunk driving offenders (M=3.49)

2 (0.7)

19 (6.8) 94 (33.5)

49. Obtaining statements from witnesses (M=3.65)

0 (0.0)

5 (1.8) 86 (30.6)

50. Making arrests (M=3.28)

2 (0.7)

40 (14.2) 109 (38.8)

51. Dealing with domestic disputes (M=3.37)

3 (1.1)

30 (10.7) 98 (34.9)

52. Working with the community to make neighborhoods safer (M=3.69)

1 (0.4)

8 (2.9) 64 (22.8)

53. Responding to calls for service (M=3.62)

1 (0.4)

3 (1.1) 93 (33.1)

54. Talking to civilians to help identify problems (M=3.59)

1 (0.4)

9 (3.2) 90 (32.0)

55. Dealing with street crime (M=3.62)

2 (0.7)

9 (3.2) 80 (28.5)

56. Completing criminal offense reports (M=3.62)

1 (0.4)

3 (1.1) 93 (33.1)

57. Conducting foot patrol (M=2.82)

20 (7.1)

75 (26.7) 102 (36.3)

58. Providing crime prevention education to the public (M=3.34)

4 (1.4)

26 (9.3) 112 (39.9)

59. Working with juveniles (M=3.33)

4 (1.4)

33 (11.7) 101 (35.9)

60. Conducting drug raids (M=3.07)

6 (2.1)

57 (20.3) 115 (40.9)

61. Maintaining crowd control (M=3.32)

7 (2.5)

22 (7.8) 118 (42.0)

62. Stopping and searching suspects (M=3.12)

6 (2.1)

41 (14.6) 134 (47.7)

63. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches (M=3.65)

1 (0.4)

6 (2.1) 78 (27.8)

64. Patrolling the streets (M=3.64)

1 (0.4)

2 (0.7) 91 (32.4)

65. General patrol duties (M=3.60)

1 (0.4)

2 (0.7) 100 (35.6)

66. General traffic duties (M=3.32)

3 (1.1)

25 (8.9) 122 (43.4)

67. Controlling traffic (M=3.15)

4 (1.4)

49 (17.4) 117 (41.6)

Very Important
N (%) 185 (65.8) 155 (55.2)
180 (64.1) 119 (42.4) 135 (48.0)
199 (70.8)
173 (61.6)
170 (60.5) 180 (64.1) 170 (60.5) 67 (23.8) 125 (44.5) 129 (45.9) 89 (31.7) 121 (43.1)
84 (29.9)
183 (65.1) 175 (62.3) 165 (58.7) 118 (42.0) 96 (34.2)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 116 of 129
Page 116 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-10. 2016 Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not Important

Not So Important

Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

68. Issuing traffic tickets (M=2.79)

10 (3.6)

93 (33.1) 104 (37.0)

69. Handling neighborhood disputes (M=3.27)

3 (1.1)

28 (10.0) 128 (45.6)

Very Important
N (%) 57 (20.3)
104 (37.0)

70. Controlling crowds at public events (M=3.46)
71. Dealing with noisy parties (M=2.44)
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

4 (1.4) 21 (7.5)

17 (6.1) 138 (49.1)

95 (33.8) 75 (26.7)

147 (52.3) 32 (11.4)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 117 of 129
Page 117 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-11. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 6: “General Questions about the Public and the Department”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree
(1)

Disagree (2)

Not Sure (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree (5)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Survey questions (Mean in parentheses):
78. Many people in society will harm you if you give them the opportunity. (M = 3.22)
79. Most people are honest. (M = 3.18)
80. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer who needs assistance. (M = 3.11)
81. In general, you should be suspicious of people. (M = 3.19)
82. The community shows a lot of respect for the police. (M = 2.68)
83. Residents do not understand the problems that we face as police officers. (M = 4.36)
84. Many residents try to make us look bad. (M = 3.45)
85. Most civilians have confidence in the police. (M = 3.06)
86. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything. (M = 2.66)
87. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them. (M = 3.48)
88. Police officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much. (M = 3.70)
89. Rarely do officers get rewarded for doing a good job.(M = 4.25)
90. Landing a good assignment is based on whom you know. (M = 3.96)
91. If you make a mistake, the department will give you a second chance. (M = 2.33)
92. If you work hard, you can get ahead in NOPD. (M = 2.70)

16 (3.6) 19 (4.2) 36 (8.0)
7 (1.6) 66 (14.7) 7 (1.6) 8 (1.8) 24 (5.3) 36 (8.0)
14 (3.1) 10 (2.2)
7 (1.6) 8 (1.8)
98 (21.8) 85 (18.9)

130 (29.0) 87 (19.4) 136 (30.3) 61 (13.6) 102 (22.7) 110 (24.5) 183 (40.8) 18 (4.0) 76 (16.9) 147 (32.7) 154 (34.3) 21 (4.7)
139 (31.0) 78 (17.4) 176 (39.2) 29 (6.5) 143 (31.8) 94 (20.9) 123 (27.4) 7 (1.6) 14 (3.1) 23 (5.1) 161 (35.9) 229 (51.0) 96 (21.4) 94 (20.9) 161 (35.9) 72 (16.0) 106 (23.6) 134 (29.8) 152 (33.9) 15 (3.3) 215 (47.9) 59 (13.1) 93 (20.7) 24 (5.3)
100 (22.3) 78 (17.4) 143 (31.8) 97 (21.6) 81 (18.0) 66 (14.7) 143 (31.8) 128 (28.5)
30 (6.7) 21 (4.7) 164 (36.5) 209 (46.5) 56 (12.5) 54 (12.0) 139 (31.0) 171 (38.1)
159 (35.4) 109 (24.3) 54 (12.0) 8 (1.8) 127 (28.3) 78 (17.4) 111 (24.7) 28 (6.2)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 118 of 129
Page 118 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-11. 2014 Distribution of Responses for Section 6: “General Questions about the Public and the Department”

Response categories:

Strongly disagree
(1)

Disagree (2)

Not Sure (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree (5)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

93. Police officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M = 3.96)

9 (2.0)

36 (8.0) 87 (19.4) 127 (28.3) 170 (37.9)

94. In general, the news media treat the police fairly. (M = 1.74)
95. The media are interested in stories about the police only when a police officer gets in trouble. (M = 4.49)

226 (50.3) 11 (2.4)

136 (30.3) 13 (2.9)

32 (7.1) 25 (5.6) 11 (2.4) 18 (4.0) 100 (22.3) 286 (63.7)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean (i.e., average) score is reported in parentheses next to each question (M).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 119 of 129
Page 119 of 129 July 24, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-12. 2016 Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

72. People in society will harm you as a

cop, if you give them the

9 (3.2) 62 (22.1) 49 (17.4) 95 (33.9)

opportunity. (M=3.46)

Strongly Agree N (%)
54 (19.2)

73. Most people are honest. (M=3.10)

17 (6.1) 62 (22.1) 81 (28.8) 98 (34.9) 13 (4.6)

74. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer that needs assistance. (M=3.30)

11 (3.9) 36 (12.8) 99 (35.2) 108 (38.4) 16 (5.7)

75. In general, you should be suspicious of people. (M=3.24)

9 (3.2) 80 (28.5) 45 (16.0) 101 (35.9) 30 (10.7)

76. The community shows a lot of respect for the NOPD police. (M=3.04)
77. Residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face. (M=4.30)
78. Many residents try to make NOPD officers look bad. (M=3.18)

16 (5.7) 73 (26.0) 68 (24.2) 103 (36.7) 6 (2.1) 5 (1.8) 7 (2.5) 17 (6.1) 113 (40.2) 127 (45.2) 4 (1.4) 79 (28.1) 72 (25.6) 90 (32.0) 23 (8.2)

79. Most civilians have confidence in NOPD police. (M=3.19)

10 (3.6)

48 (17.1)

102 (36.3)

97 (34.5) 10 (3.6)

80. I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything. (M=2.68)

33 (11.7) 121 (43.1) 31 (11.0) 61 (21.7) 20 (7.1)

81. The community doesn’t appreciate what we at NOPD do for them. (M=3.15)

6 (2.1) 95 (33.8) 54 (19.2) 76 (27.1) 36 (12.8)

82. NOPD officers could do a better job

if upper management did not

8 (2.9) 53 (18.9) 59 (21.0) 73 (26.0) 46 (16.4)

interfere so much. (M=3.40)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to

the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 120 of 129
Page 120 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table D-13. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public (continued)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

83. Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job. (M=3.17)

8 (2.9) 42 (15.0) 118 (42.0) 105 (37.4)

84. Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on “who you know.” (M=3.05)
85. If you make a mistake, NOPD will give you a second chance. (M=2.39)

9 (3.2) 64 (22.8) 99 (35.2) 32 (11.4) 104 (37.0) 109 (38.8)

95 (33.8) 11 (3.9)

86. Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD. (M=2.64)
87. NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M=3.25)

27 (9.6) 6 (2.1)

76 (27.1) 124 (44.1) 37 (13.2) 103 (36.7)

36 (12.8) 113 (40.2)

88. In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly. (M=1.98)

97 (34.5) 93 (33.1) 56 (19.9)

18 (6.4)

89. The media is interested in stories about

the NOPD only when an officer gets in

12 (4.3) 30 (10.7) 73 (26.0) 155 (55.2)

trouble. (M=3.37)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of missing values. The mean score is in parentheses next to

the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 121 of 129 Page 121 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
C. Appendix C: Detainee Survey Graphs Figure E-1. Detainees stopped in last 2 years
Figure E-2. Detainees stopped in last 6 months
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 122 of 129 Page 122 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure E-3. Detainees arrested in last 2 years
Figure E-4. Detainees arrested in last 6 months
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 123 of 129
Page 123 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

D. Appendix D: Detainee Survey Graphs

Table A-1. 2014 Detainee survey respondent demographic characteristics

N

% of Mean

Gender Male Female

46

79.3%

11

19.0%

Age (range = 18 to 67)

57

35.61

Race/ethnicity White Black Latino Vietnamese Other

7

12.1%

40

69.0%

2

3.4%

1

1.7%

7

12.1%

Live in New Orleans

Yes

46

No

11

79.3% 19.0%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse).

Table A-2. 2016 Detainee survey respondent demographic characteristics

N

%

Gender Male Female

57

78.1

11

15.1

Race White Black Latino/Hispanic Other

14

19.2

49

67.1

3

4.1

5

6.8

New Orleans Resident How long?

59

80.8

Mean=19.2 years

Identify as LGBT

2

2.7

Speak English

68

93.2

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 124 of 129
Page 124 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table B-1. 2014 Detainees’ attitudes toward with NOPD officers (specifically) and police officers (generally)

Response categories:

Strongly disagree (1)
N (%)

Disagree (2) N (%)

Neither agree/disagree
(3)
N (%)

Agree (4) N (%)

Strongly agree (5)
N (%)

1. NOPD officers do the right thing. (M = 2.64; N = 58)
3. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers conduct themselves. (M = 2.60; N = 58)
4. NOPD officers treat me with respect. (M = 2.69; N = 58)
5. NOPD officers are polite when dealing with me. (M = 2.74; N = 57)
6. NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the public. (M = 2.91; N = 57)
7. NOPD officers listen to me. (M = 2.53; N = 57)
8. I am satisfied with how I am treated by NOPD. (M = 2.51; N = 57)
10. I trust the police generally. (M = 2.07; N = 57)
11. I have confidence in the police generally. (M = 2.42; N = 57)
12. I am satisfied with the way police do their job generally. (M = 2.61; N = 57)

10 (17.2) 6 (10.3)
10 (17.2) 8 (13.8)
7 (12.1)
10 (17.2) 10 (17.2)
21 (36.2) 13 (22.4) 8 (13.8)

17 (29.3) 25 (43.1)
17 (29.3) 20 (34.5)
9 (15.5)
22 (37.9) 22 (37.9)
17 (29.3) 20 (34.5) 19 (32.8)

16 (27.6) 13 (22.4)
13 (22.4) 9 (15.5)
23 (39.7)
10 (17.2) 13 (22.4)
13 (22.4) 11 (19.0) 17 (29.3)

14 (24.1) 14 (24.1)
17 (29.3) 19 (32.8)
18 (31.0)
15 (25.9) 10 (17.2)
6 (10.3) 13 (22.4) 13 (22.4)

1 (1.7) 0 (0.0)
1 (1.7) 1 (1.7)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0) 2 (3.4)
0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 125 of 129
Page 125 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table B-2. 2016 Detainees’ attitudes toward NOPD officers

Response categories:

Strongly Disagree
(1)

Disagree (2)

N (%)

N (%)

11. Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way. (M=2.99, N=73)

11 (15.1) 10 (13.7)

Neither Agree/ Disagree (3) N (%)
25 (34.2)

Agree (4)
N (%) 23 (31.5)

Strongly Agree (5)
N (%)
4 (5.5)

12. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle themselves. (M=2.94, N=72)

10 (13.7) 16 (21.9)

20 (27.4)

20 (27.4)

6 (8.2)

13. When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with respect. (M=3.10, N=72)

11 (15.1) 10 (13.7)

22 (30.1)

19 (26.0)

10 (13.7)

14. When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite. (M=2.86, N=72)

13 (17.8) 14 (19.2)

21 (28.8)

18 (24.7)

6 (8.2)

15. In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the general public. (M=2.93, N=72)

9 (12.3) 16 (21.9)

21 (28.8)

23 (31.5)

3 (4.1)

16. Generally, NOPD officers listen to me. (M=2.61, N=72)

16 (21.9) 20 (27.4)

16 (21.9)

16 (21.9)

4 (5.5)

17. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me. (M=2.71, N=72)

15 (20.5) 19 (26.0)

16 (21.9)

16 (21.9)

6 (8.2)

18. I trust NOPD officers. (M=2.04, N=71)

30 (41.1) 21 (28.8) 10 (13.7) 7 (9.6) 3 (4.1)

19. I have confidence in NOPD officers. (M=2.31, N=72)

26 (35.6) 17 (23.3)

14 (19.2)

11 (15.1)

4 (5.5)

20. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job. (M=2.54, N=72)

19 (26.0) 15 (20.5)

22 (30.1)

12 (16.4)

4 (5.5)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 126 of 129
Page 126 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table C-1. 2014 Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful treatment

Response categories:

Highly unprofessional
(1)
N (%)

Mostly unprofessional
(2)
N (%)

Somewhat unprofessional
(3)
N (%)

Mostly professional
(4)
N (%)

Highly professional
(5)
N (%)

1. How would you describe the professionalism of the NOPD? (M = 2.72; N = 57)

6 (10.3)

12 (20.7)

32 (55.2)

6 (10.3)

1 (1.7)

Very negative (1)

Somewhat negative (2)

Neither positive Somewhat nor negative (3) positive (4)

Very positive (5)

3. How would you describe the relations between the NOPD and your community? (M = 2.75; N = 55)

14 (24.1)

8 (13.8)

13 (22.5)

18 (31.0)

5 (3.4)

Note: Entries are the frequency for each response category (N) and the percentage of respondents who fell into the category in parentheses (%). Percentages do not sum to 100% because of missing values (i.e., nonresponse). The mean score (M) and total number of respondents who answered the question (N) are presented in parentheses next to each question.

Table C-2. 2016 Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community

relations, and respectful treatment.

Never

Sometimes

Always

Professional

Professional Professional

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

I would like to know if you think the NOPD is professional. Officers are: (M=2.06, N=72)

6(82 56 (76.7)

Never Positive N (%)

Sometimes Positive N (%)

Always Positive N (%)

How would you describe relations between NOPD and your community? (M=1.76, N=72)

21(288 47 (64.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 127 of 129
Page 127 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

E. Appendix E: Detainee Survey References



Fagan, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social

Justice Research, 18, 217-241.



Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American

Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584.



President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final Report of the President’s

Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services.



Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 128 of 129
Page 128 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

F. Appendix F: OPP Jail Demographics

Table. Demographics of November 3, 2014 Snapshot of OPP Jail Population (Peyton 2015)

Demographic N=2,157

Gender Female Male Race Asian Black Hispanic White Current Age Under 18 18-24 35-34 35-44 45+

172 1985
9 1871 4 273
45 585 736 431 360

% of OPP Population

% of New Orleans Metro Area

8%

52%

92%

48%

.4% 86.7% .2% 12.7%

3.5% 32.5% 8.6% 58.2%

2.1%

14%

27.1%

19%

34.1%

14%

20%

13%

16.7%

40%

Source: Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office. Includes Plaquemines Parish Residents

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 528-1 Filed 07/24/17 Page 129 of 129
Page 129 of 129 April __, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

G. Appendix G – Supplementary Tables

Table A-1. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD officers when stopped or questioned

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer explained the reasons why.

2.63

2.65

When dealing with me, the police officer gave me a chance to explain the situation.

2.55

2.61

Overall, the police officer did his or her job.

2.60

2.71

I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer.

2.60

2.44

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Table A-2. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups

2014 Mean 2017 Mean

New Orleans police officers treat members of the Black community fairly.

2.10

2.16

New Orleans police officers treat members of the Latino community fairly.

2.29

2.23

New Orleans police officers treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly.

2.52

2.54

New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community fairly.

2.31

2.48

New Orleans police officers engage in racial profiling.

2.19

2.91

Members of the New Orleans Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of deportation.

2.85

3.02

Members of the Black community expect to be harassed by the NOPD.

2.09

3.00

Members of the Black community do not believe the NOPD is credible.

2.08

2.97

Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community do not have confidence in the NOPD.

2.34

2.70

During encounters with the NOPD, police treat the homeless poorly.

2.18

2.65

Note: The wordings for some of these items varied between 2014 and 2017. However, the substantive issue the

question was asking remained the same and the wording was deemed close enough for comparisons by

researchers consulted by the Monitoring Team. All wordings in this table reflect the wording of the items in 2017.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 39
Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Domestic Violence Patrol Response Audit Report Released December 21, 2017
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 39 Page 2 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. NOTE “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.”
Consent Decree Paragraph 455

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 39 Page 3 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Note......................................................................................................................................2 II. Table of Contents .................................................................................................................3 III. Glossary of Acronyms .........................................................................................................4 IV. Introduction to The Special Report......................................................................................6 V. Review Methodology...........................................................................................................9 VI. Gone On Arrival (GOA) Clearances..................................................................................10 VII. Necessary Action Taken (NAT) Clearances of Domestic Calls ........................................13 VIII. Reclassifying Calls from Priority (Code 2) to Non-Emergency (Code 1), and
Changing Signals ...............................................................................................................15 IX. NOPD Response To Review Findings And Further Monitoring Team
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................18 X. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................20 XI. Appendixes ........................................................................................................................22

SMRH:227091476 12

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 39
Page 4 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

III. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association

SMRH:227091476 12

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 39
Page 5 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

SMRH:227091476 12

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 39
Page 6 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT
In the report following its 2010 investigation into the practices of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) leveled significant criticism on the Police Department’s handling of domestic violence (DV) cases.1 Among other things, the DOJ found the NOPD failed adequately to investigate violence against women, including domestic violence. DOJ Findings Letter at ix (March 2011).
Since that time, the NOPD has paid great attention to the way it handles DV cases. As a result, the Police Department has made significant improvements in a number of areas. The Monitoring Team has recognized these improvements in our prior reports and in our prior public court hearings. For example, in August 2016, the Monitoring Team and the New Orleans Office of Inspector General credited the NOPD Special Victim’s Section (SVS), the detective unit responsible for follow-up investigations of DV and sexual assault cases, with a “remarkable turnaround” following a long history of poor and damaging practices.
The Monitoring Team has continued to review the SVS practices since that time, and finds that the specialized unit continues to perform extremely well. The SVS is staffed with specially trained detectives and social workers who, as the Monitoring Team’s audits have confirmed, continue to do an excellent job handling DV calls.
The NOPD SVS detectives, however, typically are not the first to respond to DV calls. In almost all cases, District-based patrol officers are the first officers on the scene. The Monitoring Team audits patrol officer responses to DV calls in all eight police districts on a monthly or quarterly basis. These audits revealed inconsistency in the way such calls are handled, and prompted the Monitoring Team to undertake a more targeted review focusing specifically on areas where we had seen problems in our monthly/quarterly audits. To this end, the Monitoring Team selected a sample of calls for service that included (a) calls designated as “Necessary Action Taken” (a designation typically not appropriate for a DV call), (b) calls designated as “Gone on Arrival” where the officer was on the scene more than 15 minutes, and (c) calls reclassified from a “Code 2” priority to a “Code 1” priority. This targeted review, which is the subject of this report, suggests significant room for NOPD improvement in certain areas.
While most NOPD patrol officers respond to DV calls with compassion, empathy, and skill, our targeted review revealed some officers respond ineffectively and, in some cases, inappropriately. Our review also revealed NOPD is not always handling DV calls in a manner consistent with the

1

The Monitoring Team recognizes not all domestic calls involve physical violence. For

ease of discussion, however, the Monitoring Team uses the term DV throughout this report to

refer to domestic violence calls and domestic disturbance calls.

SMRH:227091476 12

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 39
Page 7 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

priority nature of such calls. In fact, the Monitoring Team identified several incidents in which it took NOPD more than six hours to respond to a DV call for service.2
The Monitoring Team also identified instances in which DV calls were reclassified from a Code 2 call to a Code 1 call by a sergeant.3 While such reclassifications likely were an effort by the sergeant to manage and prioritize a lengthy backlog of calls for service awaiting police action, the reclassification nonetheless caused further delays in the victim seeing a police officer.
Section 213 of the Consent Decree provides as follows regarding Domestic Violence calls:
The NOPD agrees to prioritize victim safety and protection at each stage of its response to a report of domestic violence and provide, through the New Orleans Integrated Domestic Violence Protocol, clear guidelines for on-scene and followup investigation, including identifying, locating, and interviewing suspects and witnesses, including child witnesses; assessment of the crime scene; evidence collection, including documentation of victim injuries; and seizure of weapons.
It is the finding of the Monitoring Team, as discussed in greater detail below, that several NOPD practices do not adequately prioritize victim safety and protection at each stage of the Department’s response to DV calls. In fact, the Monitoring Team’s DV review revealed concerns or questions regarding 83 of the 124 (67%) calls for service included in our targeted sample. The NOPD practices underlying these concerns and questions:
• Reduce the likelihood NOPD will be able to deliver a meaningful response to the victim of the DV,
• Reduce citizen trust in the NOPD,
• Reduce the likelihood victims will reach out to NOPD when they are in need, and
• Create a personal safety risk for the victim in the event the perpetrator returns to the scene of the crime.

2

The Monitoring Team recognizes, in most cases, patrol officers do not control their

response times. Call volume, call priorities, available personnel, dispatcher decisions, and

supervisory decisions all impact patrol officer response times.

3

Calls for service dispatched to officers include a “signal” that describes the nature of the

call (e.g., 35D refers to Domestic Battery calls) and a Priority Code, which ranks the priority of

the call. A Code 3 is considered the highest priority and is reserved for officers in need of

assistance. A Code 2 is considered an "emergency" call for service, and should prompt an

immediate NOPD response. A Code 1 is considered a "non-emergency" call for service.

SMRH:227091476 12

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 8 of 39
Page 8 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The Monitoring Team shared its findings with the NOPD prior to the publication of this report, and the Department took prompt action to develop and initiate a meaningful corrective action plan. In consultation with the Monitoring Team, NOPD
• Changed the way DV cases are coded in its Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system,4
• Implemented enhanced training for patrol officers and supervisors,
• Met with supervisors and commanders to increase oversight of officers handling DV calls, and
• Initiated disciplinary proceedings against officers who have acted in violation of NOPD’s DV policy.
In fact, NOPD has initiated disciplinary proceedings against more than 35 officers for violations of NOPD’s DV policy for the handling of incidents that occurred between March and September 2017.
While these remedial steps are meaningful, NOPD will have to do even more to resolve the concerns laid out in this report. To this end, NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison met with the Monitoring Team and U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan on October 17, 2017 and committed the full attention of his leadership team to this matter. Notably, Superintendent Harrison was candid and straightforward regarding what needed fixing and what steps the Department planned to take.5 His frankness is noteworthy and, in itself, highlights how far the Police Department has come since the entry of the Consent Decree in 2012.
The Department’s efforts, however, likely will be complicated by the shortage of officers currently available to respond to calls for service, and by the number of calls that come in to the various police districts every night. To take just one example, more than 160 calls for service come into the Seventh District (New Orleans East) every day, approximately 12 of which are DV calls. These are large numbers for a district that, on average, has only seven officers available to respond to such calls on a given shift. In many cases, the lack of officers and the number of calls for service may have contributed to the problems identified by the Monitoring Team.

4

A CAD system is a computer-based system that permits the centralized dispatch of

officers to calls for service. The NOPD CAD system provides patrol officers and supervisors

important information concerning each call, including, among other things, the nature, priority,

and location of the incident. The CAD system also permits officers to relay important

information back to the centralized dispatch unit.

5

The steps NOPD has committed to taking are spelled out in Section X of this report.

SMRH:227091476 12

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 9 of 39
Page 9 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

While the shortage of officers explains some of the findings in this report, however, staffing levels do not explain all the findings. The Monitoring Team’s findings call into question a number of practices that simply cannot be blamed on manpower. Following a brief discussion of the Monitoring Team’s review methodology, these findings are discussed below.
V. REVIEW METHODOLOGY
Following the “remarkable turnaround” of the NOPD’s Special Victim’s Section in 2016 noted above, the Monitoring Team turned its attention to NOPD’s patrol officers. Each quarter – and sometimes each month – since the outset of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team has audited a sample of Body Worn Camera (BWC) recordings showing how patrol officers respond to DV calls. These audits, coupled with our personal observations during our many ride-alongs with NOPD officers and supervisors, have revealed opportunities to enhance NOPD’s policies, practices, and training, which the Monitoring Team regularly shares with NOPD’s leadership. Our more recent findings through these audits and observations, however, also prompted the Monitoring Team to conduct a “deep dive” targeted review of the Department’s DV practices at the patrol level.
We focused this targeted review on the areas in which we had noticed problems in our prior quarterly and monthly random audits. We concentrated our attention on three types of DV call clearances:6 (1) DV calls cleared GOA (Gone On Arrival),7 (2) DV calls cleared NAT (Necessary Action Taken); and (3) DV calls initiated with a Code 2 Priority Code but reclassified to a Code 1 (non-emergency) Priority Code. The Monitoring Team reviewed a random sample of DV-related calls for service within the targeted universe from each of NOPD’s eight police districts. Our review covered calls for service from mid-March 2017 through midSeptember 2017. Our review was conducted on-site in New Orleans by reviewing police reports, CAD call-history reports, and BWC recordings.
In addition to our review of the reports and video recordings of the calls included in our sample, the Monitoring Team also regularly rides with patrol officers and sergeants in all eight districts and during all three shifts. We also communicate regularly with DV advocacy groups, victims, and other stakeholders regarding their personal experiences with NOPD in DV responsiveness. Our personal observations from these ride-alongside and meetings provided important context to better understand NOPD’s DV response practices.

6

A “call clearance” is the term NOPD uses to indicated how a call for service was

resolved.

7

The Monitoring Team selected calls cleared with a GOA designation where the

responding officer was on the scene of the call for at least 15 minutes. We selected this targeted

sample rather than a random sample in an effort more efficiently to identify the source of the

questionable GOA clearances we had been seeing in our monthly/quarterly audits.

SMRH:227091476 12

-9-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 10 of 39
Page 10 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VI. GONE ON ARRIVAL (GOA) CLEARANCES
The NOPD received 813 DV-related calls from mid-March through mid-September 2017 in which the officer remained on the scene of the call for more than 15 minutes and yet the call was cleared GOA. The Monitoring Team randomly selected 41 of those calls (5%) for review. Our review of the reports, BWC recordings, and CAD data showed many of the GOA clearances resulted from a delayed NOPD response leading to the complainant no longer being on the scene at the time the officer finally arrived.8
The Monitoring Team’s review also identified situations in which a call was designated GOA by a patrol officer even though the officer actually spoke to the victim at the scene. This anomaly materialized most often when a “power shift” officer9 initially responded to a DV call to ensure the victim was safe, but left the resolution of the call (and the writing of the necessary report) to an officer on the later shift. NOPD officers refer to this practice as putting the call “back in the stack.” While we commend the practice of using the “power shift” officer to ensure the safety of the victim, the practice of putting a call “back in the stack” brings with it several significant unintended negative consequences.
Placing a call “back in the stack” causes the call to be dispatched a second time, but without an effective way to associate the first officer response with the second officer response. The Monitoring Team’s inability to link the two calls together may be due to several scenarios: (1) the absence of a BWC recording by the second officer, (2) no second officer actually returned to the scene, or (3) the two calls were assigned different Item Numbers.10 Whatever the reason, the inability to associate the original response with the follow-up response is problematic. A different item number would mean the original call is counted twice, which impacts the integrity of NOPD’s calls for service data. Further, more often than not, and whether a single Item Number or multiple Items Numbers are assigned, the second officer is dispatched many hours later, when the victim often is no longer at the scene. This means the original domestic violence incident is never documented and the important DV “history” of the call is lost. It also becomes more difficult to determine whether a report ever was written.
Putting calls “back in the stack” also is a bad practice for agencies trying to instill the principles of community policing and procedural justice in its officers, as the NOPD is. Many victims do

8

The Monitoring Team raised this issue with the NOPD in 2015, and NOPD took steps to

remedy the problem. Our recent review, however, shows NOPD still has significant work to do

to fix the problem.

9

A “power shift officer” is an officer who begins his/her shift prior to the normal shift start

in order to provide additional coverage during shift changes.

10 Each call for services is assigned a unique Item Number by the CAD system. Among other things, the Items Numbers are used by NOPD to generate calls for service data shared with the public.

SMRH:227091476 12

-10-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 11 of 39
Page 11 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

not understand why they have to tell their story twice, or why they have to be inconvenienced by having to wait long periods of time for a second officer to show up at their homes. The Monitoring Team has heard many DV victims (in person and through our review of BWC recordings) express extreme discontent and frustration with this perceived lack of victim-focused service.
Further, the practice causes undue delays in reporting, and, in most cases, results in the oncoming shifts being bogged down with old calls, causes unnecessary travel time for the oncoming officers, and often ultimately ends in a GOA clearance. Putting calls “back in the stack” creates other problems as well. In many cases, initial officers collect key information that never is relayed to the second officer who arrives much later.
NOPD must take prompt and meaningful steps to remedy the problems caused by putting calls “back in the stack.” One partial solution is to require that “power shift” officers write a report (or at least record their observations in some form) while they continue to monitor the radio or computer for other priority calls. Another partial solution is to develop a protocol whereby calls placed “back in the stack” are linked to the later dispatch of the report-writing officer.
In addition to the problems associated with GOA designations described above, the Monitoring Team also observed some calls being cleared GOA even though the responding patrol officer spoke with one or more of the parties involved in the DV incident. This practice, obviously, does not comport with NOPD policy.
The NOPD policy on the patrol response to DV states as follows:
The Department’s commitment to an interagency response to domestic violence crimes is largely dependent on the platoon officer’s initial response to each case. The platoon officer report lays the foundation for each subsequent intervener, and its attention to specific details either helps or hinders each practitioner’s efforts to maximize victim safety and offender accountability.
The NOPD DV policy also states as follows:
The Department’s policy emphasizes the importance of accumulating information over time and incidents in order to understand and appropriately respond to the level of danger and risk posed by offenders in a crime that is often complex and difficult to prosecute. When officers treat each call as part of an ongoing case, patterns may likely emerge, and the safety needs of all victims become more evident.
The policy requires that a report be written on all calls involving a DV disturbance or when a DV-related crime has been committed. When an officer is able to communicate with at least one of the parties, the officer typically will have sufficient information to determine whether a DV

SMRH:227091476 12

-11-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 12 of 39
Page 12 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

incident has occurred. If all parties are not available or have left the scene, a GOA clearance may be acceptable. Our review, however, revealed some officers assigning GOA clearances to calls even though the parties were not actually gone upon the officer’s arrival.
Our targeted review of 41 call responses cleared as GOA revealed 13 calls (38 %) were handled properly and within NOPD policy guidelines. In contrast to these 13 calls, 28 calls (68%)11 raised concerns regarding NOPD’s use of the GOA designation. For example:
• NOPD officers responded to a call involving a male punching a female victim in the face and a biting. The officer put the call “back in the stack” and a follow-up officer was sent approximately 9.5 hours later. As there was no response at the door when the second officer arrived, the officer marked the call GOA.
• A DV incident occurred in April at 2:00 in the afternoon. NOPD’s data do not reveal a dispatch time, but do reveal an officer arrived on the scene almost seven hours later. The Body Worn Camera recording shows an officer speaking to a male at the door who stated he tried to cancel the call earlier. The officer explained NOPD is required to come out for all DV calls. The officer then cleared the call GOA.
• Patrol officers arrived on the scene of a DV call. The caller and the alleged perpetrator were still on the scene when the officers arrived. The officers used poor communications skills and did not separate the complainants. They also used poor tactics by leaving both parties inside the home together. No resources were offered and the call was placed “back in the stack.” When the next shift arrived, the call was cleared GOA.
These examples are illustrative of others identified in the Monitoring Team’s review. Appendix A sets out summaries of all 28 problematic calls, redacted to remove personal information, as well as summaries of the Monitoring Team’s concerns. Additional details regarding each matter were shared directly with the NOPD.
While NOPD’s practice of putting DV calls “back in the stack” may explain the Monitoring Team’s inability to locate reports relating to many of the foregoing incidents, such inability is yet another reason why the practice is a bad one. Putting DV calls “back in the stack” (a) delays helping the victim in a timely fashion, (b) reduces the likelihood the perpetrator will be apprehended, (c) puts the integrity of NOPD’s DV data in question, (d) prevents supervisors from ensuring DV calls were responded to properly, and (e) potentially wastes officer time by

11 As explained above, the 68% does not reflect 68% of all DV calls. Rather, the 68% is of the targeted sample of calls cleared GOA selected by the Monitoring Team.

SMRH:227091476 12

-12-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 13 of 39
Page 13 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

requiring repetitive work since the second responding officer does not know what the first responding officer already did.
Further, and more generally, the concerns identified by the Monitoring Team have a very real public safety element. Flawed, inefficient, and/or ineffective DV patrol response practices may
• Place victims at further risk (e.g., if the perpetrator returns to the scene),
• Place officers at further risk (e.g., officers letting their guard down because they think they are just returning to write a report), and
• Hinder the Department’s efforts to respond to DV crimes.
Inadequate DV patrol responses also can increase the chance victims will not call the police the next time they are in need of help.
VII. NECESSARY ACTION TAKEN (NAT) CLEARANCES OF DOMESTIC CALLS
The NOPD received 523 calls initially classified as domestic from mid-March through midSeptember 2017 in which the responding patrol officer cleared the call NAT.12 NOPD policy does not permit, and the Department’s CAD system does not allow, NAT clearance for calls designated with a “D” (e.g., a 35D is a domestic battery). The NOPD policy regarding Domestic Violence (Policy 42.4) is clear on NAT clearances, and states as follows:
All Domestic Violence investigations shall be given a case disposition of RTF (report to follow) regardless of whether or not an arrest was made. Under no circumstance shall a NAT (necessary action taken) disposition be used for domestic violence incidents.
Reports shall include victim statements and disposition of the case (La. R.S. 46:2141; Ch.C. 1574).
The “D” designator shall be used on all domestic violence incidents.
As indicated in the policy, a “D” call indicates a possible domestic violence incident. All D-type calls with a Code 2 priority code require a supervisor to go to the scene if possible. The only way an officer can clear a “D” call NAT is by first changing the designation from a D to some

12 Not all 523 calls actually were DV calls. Sometimes calls are designated DV by the dispatcher, but turn out not to be DV calls at all. For example, a caller may have thought a man and woman fighting were husband and wife when in fact they were mere acquaintances. In these cases, it is appropriate for the officer, with supervisor approval, to switch the signal from a DV designation to the appropriate designation.

SMRH:227091476 12

-13-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 14 of 39
Page 14 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

other designation. Such a signal change requires a supervisor’s approval, which may be appropriate in some cases. For example, an officer may arrive on a scene and discover the incident simply is not a DV incident.13 In such a case, with a supervisor’s approval, the officer may request the signal be changed to the appropriate signal.
The Monitoring Team’s review identified multiple instances of this policy being violated by officers and/or supervisors. We identified multiple NAT clearances in the context of DV incidents. While some of these clearances may have been appropriate, NOPD was unable to produce supporting information demonstrating the propriety of the clearances.
The Monitoring Team randomly selected 26 NAT calls (5%) initially designed as DV calls for evaluation. Our review of the available BWC recordings and related CAD data showed that the NAT clearances resulted from a “signal change” by an officer or a supervisor – i.e., a change from a DV call signal (e.g., 35D) to a non-DV call signal. The Monitoring Team’s review identified several different reasons for signal changes. Some changes were understandable, appropriate, approved by a supervisor, and within policy. Other signal changes were in violation of NOPD policy. Some signal changes were not adequately documented in NOPD records to allow us to determine whether the change was appropriate or not. The Monitoring Team considered undocumented signal changes as not within policy for purposes of our review.
Our review of 26 call responses cleared as NAT revealed seven calls (27%) were handled properly and within policy guidelines. These calls revealed misclassifications by the dispatcher and, thus, correct signal changes by the officers on the scene with supervisor approval. The Monitoring Team verified through BWC recordings that the actual events in each of these calls were not related to a DV incident. These are calls that do not meet the criteria for a DV incident.
In contrast, our review identified 19 calls (73%) out of 26 that raised concerns to the Monitoring Team. For example:
• Officers responded to a DV incident between a husband and a wife. When the officers arrived, the husband was gathering his clothing to leave the residence. The female stated “we had a fight this morning and he won’t leave.” The officer stated on the BWC to the other officer on the scene that the incident is a 103D (domestic) matter. The officer then spoke to the male in Spanish and related to the second officer that the relationship is ending and that he told the husband to

13 The Monitoring Team has observed significant confusion among officers regarding whether certain types of intra-family disputes qualify as DV cases. Two brothers fighting, for example, may meet the definition of a DV incident in some contexts, but in other contexts may not. The Monitoring Team is working closely with NOPD, the U.S. DOJ, and the Court to explore ways to provide additional meaningful guidance to patrol officers to deal with such admittedly confusing and complicated matters.

SMRH:227091476 12

-14-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 15 of 39
Page 15 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

call the police department if he needs anything further. This is clearly a reportable incident, but was cleared NAT with no report on file.
• Officers responded to a Code 2 priority DV call in which a third-party caller reported a physical altercation with a gun involved. A male officer spoke to an older man at the door who didn’t know who called the police, but who thought his grandson may have been in a fight with his girlfriend. The grandson came out of the door with a baby and explained he had had an argument with the child’s mother. The officers said “I will just 21 it,” which means “I will treat it as a complaint rather than as a DV call.” The officers cleared the matter NAT. There was no questioning about what occurred in the fight or why a gun was mentioned. The officers spoke to an involved party and should have written a report.
The 19 summaries set forth in Appendix B illustrate the nature of the Monitoring Team’s concerns. Overall, these concerns suggest some NOPD officers are using the NAT designation inappropriately, which, as with other practices identified in this report, precludes access to the important documented history of the DV incident. 14 In addition to having an impact on victims and officers, an incomplete or inaccurate documented history can affect future police responses, court cases, DV response initiatives and protocols, and DV policy evaluations/reviews. It is difficult to assess the full impact of this practice, however, since, by definition, there are no reports accompanying NAT designations. In any case, the practice is troublesome and must be remedied. NOPD is looking into every NAT identified by the Monitoring Team and will be reporting its findings back to the Monitoring Team.
VIII. RECLASSIFYING CALLS FROM PRIORITY (CODE 2) TO NONEMERGENCY (CODE 1), AND CHANGING SIGNALS
Based upon our monthly and quarterly random audits and our observations during our many ridealongs, the Monitoring Team decided to review NOPD’s handling of Priority Codes in our targeted DV audit. Since Code 2 calls receive a much faster response than Code 1 calls15 – and understandably so – the Monitoring Team became concerned DV calls may be being reclassified inappropriately by supervisors trying to manage their district’s high call volume.

14 The Monitoring Team identified some situations where officers changed call signals to a mental health signal and, thus, avoided preparing a DV report. (A mental health call does not require the same documentation as a DV call.) The Monitoring Team will conduct a separate data analysis to determine the extent of and reasons for these situations, including whether the decisions to designated a call as a mental health issue was made to avoid completing the DV report.
15 Notably, the Department’s public commitment to respond to calls in an average of seven minutes applies only to Code 2 calls.

SMRH:227091476 12

-15-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 16 of 39
Page 16 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Our review covered calls for service from mid-March through mid-September 2017. The NOPD received 1,889 DV calls involving a reclassification (i.e., a change from a Code 2 to a Code 1 following initial dispatch) during this period. The Monitoring Team reviewed 57 (3%) of them to determine if they were reclassified appropriately.
NOPD policy requires a supervisor’s approval to reclassify a signal code.16 The NOPD DV policy states as follows regarding signal codes:
Should the officer believe the parties do not meet relationship criteria for intimate partners, family members or household members, the officer shall contact his/her supervisor for approval to proceed with the investigation as a non-domestic incident. [17]
Should the officer believe the parties do meet the relationship criteria in this chapter for intimate partners, family members or household members, but the incident has not been classified with a “D” signal code, the officer shall notify dispatch to change the signal code to a domestic incident.
Only a supervisor may downgrade the signal of a domestic violence call.
The Monitoring Team found NOPD’s practices in many cases to not be consistent with this policy.
The Monitoring Team reviewed BWC footage and CAD reports to determine whether the priority code change appeared to be warranted based on the facts presented. Our review of 57 randomly-selected reclassified call responses revealed 21 calls (37%) appeared to be handled properly. We identified 36 calls (53%), however, for which we were unable to determine why the response was reclassified and/or whether the supervisor approved the change. These 36 calls raised concerns to the Monitoring Team. For example:
• One CAD entry indicated “a female friend is breaking his car window and there is a knife involved.” The CAD further stated the phone was disconnected and the subject was trying to stab the caller. The incident occurred at 12:10 am and was dispatched almost two hours later. The incident subsequently was changed to a Code 1 by a supervisor, and ultimately was cleared GOA at 2:22 am.

16 Although not clearly stated in the policy, as a practical matter, a supervisor’s approval also is required to change the priority of a call.
17 Due to a change in Louisiana State Law, NOPD recently updated Policy 42.4 to change “intimate partners” to “dating partners.”

SMRH:227091476 12

-16-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 17 of 39
Page 17 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Another CAD entry indicated “the ex-boyfriend was drinking and had a gun. He was threatening her and burning her property.” The CAD further stated the victim needed medical attention and the suspect was on the scene at approximately 9:24 pm. The priority was reclassified five minutes later. The call was dispatched at 3:05 am. There is no report and it is unknown why it was reclassified.
The 36 summaries in Appendix C illustrate the nature of our Team’s additional concerns. While some of the items we reviewed may have been handled properly by the officers and supervisors involved, the sparse records available did not allow us to reach such an affirmative conclusion.
In addition to looking at reclassifications generally, the Monitoring Team also examined whether DV calls were reclassified more frequently during certain times of the day. This review was prompted by our personal observation during our ride-alongs that DV calls were designated or re-designated a Code 1 (versus a Code 2) more often around shift changes.
NOPD shift changes occur at 6:30 am (0630), 2:30 pm (1430), and 10:30 pm (2230). To perform our review, we examined calls involving Code changes and Priority reclassifications in 30 minute increments for the same six-month period as our overall review. As shown below, the priority change chart shows spikes during or near shift change.

Our personal observations coupled with our conversations with officers across the Department suggests some reasons why reclassification of DV calls might spike around shift changes.

SMRH:227091476 12

-17-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 18 of 39
Page 18 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• First, DV calls take a long time to resolve compared to other types of calls. They, thus, render officers unavailable for other calls for extended periods of time – and make it impossible for them to go off duty at the end of their shifts.
• Second, officers who take calls that keep them after their shifts are eligible for overtime. Supervisors are responsible for limiting their use of overtime within their respective shifts.18
• Third, DV calls are extremely complicated and often involve complex family fact patterns that many officers do not view as true DV situations. Having to treat siblings fighting as a DV case, for example, frustrates many officers who believe they should be spending more time on “real” DV cases.
In short, whatever the reasons, it seems NOPD’s much-publicized effort to reduce Code 2 response times has created an unintended negative consequence of contributing to the reclassification of Code 2 DV calls as Code 1 DV calls.
IX. NOPD RESPONSE TO REVIEW FINDINGS AND FURTHER MONITORING TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The Monitoring Team’s targeted DV review raised concerns or questions regarding 83 of the 124 (67%) calls for service we examined. We notified the NOPD Compliance Bureau of our more serious findings as we progressed through our review. To its credit, and as explained in greater detail in Appendix D to this report, NOPD initiated a number of immediate corrective actions, including the following:
• NOPD reviewed a random sample of reclassified domestic incidents and initiated 39 disciplinary investigations.
• NOPD implemented an emergency revision to the domestic violence policy to ensure the supervisors are involved in all signal changes of domestic disturbance calls.
• The NOPD Compliance Bureau initiated a comprehensive policy review in an attempt to identify opportunities for additional clarification or streamlining.
• Supervisors highlighted the policy changes in roll call training in all districts.
• The Compliance Bureau initiated a new review protocol for DV signal changes and calls marked GOA.

18 Signal changes, on the other hand, seem to be somewhat less impacted by shift change.

SMRH:227091476 12

-18-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 19 of 39
Page 19 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• The Compliance Bureau committed to analyze repeat calls for service at locations where calls were reclassified or marked GOA after spending significant time on scene.
• All non-emergency (Code 1) DV calls now will be dispatched in the top priority code 1 classification (Code lA) to improve response times.
• The Compliance Bureau will monitor trends in signal changes, response times, and policy compliance to assess whether these reforms are having the necessary impact.
Additionally, the Commander of the Field Operations Bureau restricted “back in the stack” clearances in the Seventh District. The Seventh District handled 25 % of all DV incidents in the City of New Orleans during the review period. The Seventh District also had the highest number of GOA clearances – many of those resulting from “back in the stack” CAD entries – in the sample reviewed by the Monitoring Team.
With respect to the modifications to NOPD’s current DV policy, the DOJ and the Monitoring Team approved the requested modifications. The new wording adds domestic disturbance language to those calls that require a supervisor’s approval to change a signal. The prior wording required supervisory approval to change a signal for “a domestic violence call.” Some officers may have thought the supervisory approval was needed only if a DV “crime” occurred. However, both the policy and lesson plan for DV training state that calls with a D-designation always require a report.
The policy modification also added the requirement that a request for a signal change be made on the primary radio channel by notifying the Communications Division so it will be recorded. Prior to this change, officers and/or supervisors often made changes over the telephone. This made the authorization difficult to track or verify.
Lastly, the new policy warns the following:
NOTE: Both the supervisor and officer should be aware that omitting material facts that could affect the justification for a signal change is considered a violation of Rule 2 – Moral Conduct, paragraph 3 – Honesty and Truthfulness.
A copy of Policy 42.4, with the edited wording, will be posted on NOPD’s public internet site.
In addition to the steps NOPD already is taking, the Monitoring Team recommends the practice of placing DV calls “back in the stack” be eliminated department-wide, or at least be modified to facilitate faster response times and to provide an effective means of linking the original NOPD response to the subsequent NOPD follow-up response. We make this recommendation because the current practice:

SMRH:227091476 12

-19-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 20 of 39
Page 20 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

• Leads to GOA clearances and no DV report, which raises significant public safety concerns and potential prosecution concerns;
• Bogs down the on-coming shift and delays their response to new calls;
• Results in double-counting of DV calls IF the calls are given a new item number when they are “returned to the stack”;
• Confuses complainants who do not understand why the initial responding officer does not write the report, and erodes trust in the interviewer;
• Forces DV victims to tell their story to a second officer, which is especially troubling given the trauma involved in many DV cases;
• May increase risk to officers who believe they are responding to an earlier DV call merely to “write a report,” but actually may be returning to an active DV crime scene; and
• Inconveniences and disillusions victims and could result in domestic violence victims deciding not to call the police again when the next incident occurs.
The Monitoring Team further recommends regular internal audits of calls cleared as NAT and reclassified calls to determine whether the status was justifiably changed and was changed with supervisory approval.
Finally, the Monitoring Team recommends enhanced training for recruits and veterans at the Police Academy. Patrol officers should be reminded regularly that if one party to a DV or disturbance call is available to give his or her version of the incident resulting in a DV call for service, the report must be written with the details available. A call cannot be marked GOA if one of the parties has left the scene, but the other remains, or if the caller later decides he or she does not need the police.
X. CONCLUSION
The majority of patrol officers who respond to DV calls for service and initiate a report on the scene are doing a much better job than they did just two years ago. The Monitoring Team has taken note that updated DV policies and training has resulted in a more victim-centered patrol response in most cases. However, as NOPD leadership has agreed, there remains significant room for continued improvement in this area.
In this targeted review, the Monitoring Team examined clearances likely to be problematic based upon our monthly and quarterly random audits. Our findings, not surprisingly, identified several areas in need of significant improvement. Clearly, some adjustments must be made to improve

SMRH:227091476 12

-20-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 21 of 39 Page 21 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
service delivery during calls for domestic violence. In many of these cases there needs to be a great sense of urgency to ensure DV calls are documented. The Monitoring Team knows NOPD’s leaders are aware of the deficiencies described in this report and are working to resolve inappropriate response through discipline, re-training, amended policy, and more diligent supervision of the response by patrol officers to calls of domestic violence.

SMRH:227091476 12

-21-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 22 of 39 Page 22 of 39 December 21, 2017 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. APPENDIXES

SMRH:227091476 12

-22-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 23 of 39 Appendix A

GONE ON ARRIVAL (GOA) CLEARANCES – OFFICER ON THE SCENE MORE THAN 15 MINUTES
 F-06777-17, District 1:
 Officers responded to a call involving a male punching a female victim in the face and a biting. The officer put the call “back in the stack” and a follow-up officer was sent approximately 9.5 hours later. As there was no response at the door when the second officer arrived, the officer marked the call GOA.
 G-16127-17, District 3:
 Officers responded to a dispute between a mother and a daughter. The officers spoke to the mother who explained she was “put out of the apartment” around midnight. The daughter would not answer the door when police arrived. The officers were abrupt and not victim-centered in their communications with the mother. A report was required per NOPD policy, and the officers had enough information for the report, but the call was cleared GOA.
 D-32433-17, District 3:
 The incident occurred in April at 2:00 in the afternoon. NOPD’s data do not reveal a dispatch time, but do reveal an officer finally arrived on the scene almost seven hours later. The BWC recording shows an officer speaking to a male at the door who stated he tried to cancel the call earlier. The officer explained NOPD is required to come out for all DV calls. The officer then cleared the call GOA. The delay undoubtedly impacted the outcome of this matter.
 E-20395-17, District 4:
 Officers responded to a domestic argument between two sisters in which one sister alleged she was “tasered” by her sister. The officers observed the taser, but saw no marks on the child from the incident. The supervisor authorized the call to be put “back in the stack” for the next shift. There is no record of a report under this item number and it is unknown whether a follow-up occurred.
 C-32075-17, District 5:
 Officers responded to a Code 2 DV call involving an argument between a male and his child’s mother occurring in a vehicle. Officers arrived within minutes of the incident, and the call was cleared approximately one half hour after their arrival on the scene. Both BWCs, however, are less than three minutes long. The call is cleared GOA and there is no report under the item number.
 E-03578-17, District 5:
 Officers responded to an address to “try to make contact” to the victim of a reported DV. The BWC recordings are both less than two minutes. There is an three hour delay in

SMRH:227091476 12

-i-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 24 of 39
Appendix A
dispatch. NOPD’s data do not explain the cause of the delay and the BWC recordings do not reveal the outcome of the call.
 E-17029-17, District 5:
 Officers responded to a complaint by a female who was upset that her former “old man” cut off her electricity. The officers explained to the female it was “shift change” (it was 6:18 am), and “someone else would come out and take a report.” On the BWC, the complainant is clearly annoyed and asked “why can’t you take the report? You all are here now?” She also states if you can’t take it then don’t worry about it. It would be a brief report to document the incident. Unknown if it was placed “back in the stack” or what the outcome was.
 I-12130-17, District 5:
 The incident occurred in September 2017 at 5:47 am. The CAD report states the “brother is arguing with complainant and throwing items in the residence. The subject just left, no response from rank, holding, 520 still holding, and no answer on the call back.” The call was dispatch at 9:06 am, more than three hours after the call came in.
 C-33867-17, District 2:
 Patrol officers arrived on the scene of a DV call. The caller and the alleged perpetrator still were on the scene when the officers arrived. The officers used poor communications skills and did not separate the complainants. They also used poor tactics by leaving both parties inside the home together. No resources were offered and the call was placed “back in the stack.” When the next shift arrived, it was cleared GOA.
 E-15774-17, District 7:
 Three officers responded to a DV call. One of the three did not have a BWC recording. The second of the three recorded only the trip to the call. Both officers who did have a BWC, turned off their cameras early. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate a report in the system. Ultimately, NOPD was able to locate the report.
 D-05039-17, District 7:
 The incident involved two brothers, one of whom allegedly locked the other out of a shared apartment. The responding patrol officer stated he would not speak to one of the brothers about being locked out of the apartment. One of the three officers did not have a recording on the Item number. No report was located.
 D-07526-17, District 7:
 The officers responded to a DV call involving a 14 year old child experiencing mental health challenges. The 911 caller stated the child had assaulted family members. The officers told the family that if the NOPD took the child to a facility, the facility would

SMRH:227091476 12

-ii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 25 of 39
Appendix A
call to have the family take her back home. The call was placed “back in the stack.” The Monitoring Team could not locate a report in NOPD’s files.
 E-31698-17, District 7:
 Two officers responded to a DV call at 10:42 pm. The call was placed “back in the stack.” A second officer returned to the location of the call the next day in the afternoon. There was no one home when the officer arrived. The officer then cleared the call “GOA.” The Monitoring Team could not locate an associated report in NOPD’s files.
 I-15457-17, District 7:
 The incident occurred in September at 8:25 pm. The responding officers handcuffed a man, who was later released . The officers placed the call “back in the stack,” and a report-writing officer arrived 5.5 hours later. No one was home when the officer arrived. The Monitoring Team could not locate an associated report in NOPD’s files.
 H-00024-17, District 7:
 Three officers responded to a DV call at 12:47 am. One of the responding officers told the Sergeant he normally would “stack the call,” but had never done that with both the man and woman remaining on the scene. The Sergeant told the officer to put it “back in the stack.” Another officer arrived over five hours later and no one was home. The officer marked the call GOA. The Monitoring Team could not locate an associated report.
 I-08908-17, District 7:
 Two officers responded to a DV call at a City building. A 16 year old stated his father threatened to shoot him. The officers verified through mental health officials there was a long history of mental health issues with the son. The officers told the youth to go back to the house, and the youth walked off down the street. The officers were on the scene for 40 minutes and discussed the details of the matter with the parties, yet told the father they would send another car to write the report. The officers told the father they do not transport kids to the hospital just because “he was tired of dealing with him.” The Monitoring Team was unable to locate an associated report.
 G-22363-17, District 7:
 An officer responded to a DV call in a home, and found the telephone at the location pulled out of the wall. The woman reported a physical altercation and identified her husband as the perpetrator. The officer said he would drive around looking for the husband. The officer told her another car would come to take the report. The officers told her it was not illegal to argue, and she should bolt the door and call if he comes back. The Monitoring Team was unable to locate a report.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 26 of 39
Appendix A
 G-41087-17, District 7:
 The BWC was very short – slightly more than four minutes. A female stated her boyfriend had struck her in the face. The officers obtained a description of the male and told her another car would come and write the report. When a second officer came 13.5 hours later, she was not home. There was no report on file.
 D-31520-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated there was an irate male in the background when the call came in threatening to kill the female complainant, and then the line was disconnected. An officer responded and located a female on the front step of the residence. The threatening male had left the scene. The officer stated he was a “response” unit and would have another officer return to write the report. The second officer went to an incorrect address and did not try to clarify the location with the prior officer. The incident was placed “back in the stack.” The Monitoring Team could not locate a report.
 D-28245-17, District 7:
 The CAD record indicated a “disturbance in progress,” and that a third party caller tried to cancel the call. The BWC was slightly more than one minute in length. The recording showed the officer driving to the call and stopping in front of the residence. He stated, as recorded on his BWC, he was marking the call GOA due to the caller cancelling. (Notably, callers reporting a DV crime may not cancel the call. NOPD policy requires an officer to visit the location of the call.) No report was located.
 D-19484-17, District 7:
 An officer responded to a DV call. The BWC showed no response at the door. A Sergeant also was observed on the recording at the door. The officers asked the dispatcher to call the complainant, but there was no answer on the call back. The Monitoring Team could not locate information sufficient to determine how NOPD resolved this call.
 E-15704-17, District 7:
 An officer responded to a DV call. The BWC showed no answer at the door with a brief three minute recording. No report was located.
 C-20287-17, District 7:
 The officer spoke to a woman who stated she called the Police Department earlier in the day. The officer acknowledged the call came in at 2:00 pm, but explained he did not come on duty until 11 pm.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iv-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 27 of 39
Appendix A
 G30374-17, District 7:
 The CAD record indicates a man attacked and “choked” the complainant. The CAD record indicates the crime was in process when officers were dispatched, and that the perpetrator (the man) had been arrested previously. The BWC was only 30 seconds and suggests the officer did not even knock on the door. The Monitoring Team could not locate a report.
 E-18033-17, District 7:
 The CAD remarks described an in-process domestic dispute with a “hysterical victim” and the suspect both on the scene. There was no answer at the door when the officer arrived. It is unknown whether there was an earlier call under a different item number. The Monitoring Team could not locate a report in the NOPD system.
 F-38202-17, District 7:
 The BWC was only three minutes long, and showed a woman answering the door and stating the alleged perpetrator was gone. It is unknown whether there was an earlier call under a different Item number. There is no report in the system to determine how the call was resolved.
 I-15348-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated an ex-boyfriend threw a cup at the complainant and damaged her car door. The ex-boyfriend was still on the scene when the patrol officers arrived. The complainant tried to cancel the call, saying she did not need the police. There were no BWC’s matching this Item number and there is no report in the system.
 H-16813-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated the caller’s brother assaulted him and would not let him back in the house. The report stated described a physical fight with alcohol or drugs involved. There were eleven entries in the CAD system notifying the supervisor the call was holding. There are no BWC’s and it is unknown if the police ever responded to this call for service.

SMRH:227091476 12

-v-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 28 of 39 Appendix B

NECESSARY ACTION TAKEN (NAT) CLEARANCES OF DOMESTIC CALLS
 E-17474- 17, District 1:
 Officers responded to a call where the mother stated on the BWC that her “ex” and child’s father “got in my face”, …”knocked over stuff,” and “acted like he was going to hit me.” The BWC also showed the officer informing the complainant she could go to the courthouse to obtain a “stay away” order. The nature of the complaint renders this an offense that must be reported by the officer. There is no report on file and the CAD indicates it was cleared NAT.
 G-27657- 17, District 1:
 Officers responded to a call in which the female complainant stated a male was continuously “threatening her with bodily harm and it is escalating.” She stated on the BWC, “I am scared” and “I know you are going to tell me it’s a civil matter!” The BWC recording suggests the female had obtained some type of commitment papers, and records some discussion of an eviction. The matter ultimately was cleared NAT. While it is possible the incident was cleared NAT because one of the individuals was in mental health crisis, the DV element of the call nonetheless should have been documented. The Monitoring Team fears some officers may be designating calls as involving mental health issues to avoid treating them as DV calls. The Monitoring Team will conduct a separate data analysis to determine whether these concerns are fact-based.
 F-03641-17, District 1:
 This event was initiated in early June 2017 at 10:06 pm. It was dispatched at 07:57am (approximately 10 hours later). The call was about a fight involving brothers in which one stated “he threatened me about getting a gun.” The officer turned off the BWC before the clearance and the CAD system reflects a NAT designation with no report. This call highlights the difficulty many officers have between distinguishing between DV calls and other calls. The Monitoring Team is working closely with NOPD to improve training in this regard.
 E-18323- 17, District 1:
 Officers responded to a DV incident between a husband and a wife. When the officers arrived, the husband was gathering his clothing to leave the residence. The female stated “we had a fight this morning and he won’t leave.” The officer states on the BWC to the other officer on the scene that it is a 103D (i.e., a domestic matter). The officer then speaks to the male in Spanish and relates to the second officer that the relationship is ending and that he told the husband to call the police back if he needs anything else. This is clearly a reportable incident, but was cleared NAT with no report on file.
 H-33381- 17, District 1:
 Officers responded to a 17 year old male juvenile who was calm when they arrived, but allegedly was acting “out of control” by “punching holes and breaking plates” when the

SMRH:227091476 12

-i-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 29 of 39 Appendix B

call was initiated. The mother, who called the police, told the officers the juvenile was angry because he ”doesn’t want to go to school.” The mother explained the juvenile has an Attention Deficit Disorder, but is competent to make decisions. CIT was not called to the scene and the juvenile was not transported to a hospital, but the call was cleared 103M (a mental health matter) and NAT. This is example of a potential over-use of the 103M signal, which could mask a DV matter. Had this been an actual 103M case, a CIT report would have been written. Because this matter was cleared NAT, however, nothing was documented.
 H-32853- 17, District 2:
 Officers responded to an argument between a mother and her adult son about him staying up too late watching TV. The BWC captured the female officer stating “we need to make a report,” and the officer taking the information for the report. The female officer turned off the BWC before the clearance, and it is in the CAD as a NAT and no report on file.
 G-09328-17, District 2:
 Officers responded to a female with a baby in her arms complaining that her boyfriend changed the locks on the apartment and she needed to go in and get diapers. The officers went to the boyfriend’s address and there was no answer at the door. They did attempt to assist the complainant, but the matter was a reportable domestic incident and yet was cleared NAT with no report in the system.
 H-20411 -17, District 2:
 Officers responded to a call from a grandmother having trouble with her grandson who is “cutting up and carrying on” because he wanted a debit card. The grandmother informed the officers she “wants him out of her house.” She further stated on the BWC “he acts like he is crazy, but he is not crazy!” The grandson appeared to have some behavioral issues, but left the scene willingly with his father. There is no transport and no CIT involvement, but the incident is cleared as a 103M and NAT. This is a reportable domestic incident with no report in the system.19
 E-21556- 17, District 2:
 In mid-May 2017, officers responded to a call in which a husband asked to meet the NOPD in a parking lot down the street from his house. He had two young children in his car. He reported he just left his house after he found his wife in their house “shooting up” in the bathroom and she began cutting her arm with a knife and said “if you call the police on me then you are going too!” At 37 minutes into the call, the BWC shows the officer is on the phone with the New Orleans Department of Social Services explaining the situation. He states he has not gone to the house yet. There is a second officer on the

19 At the time of review, the Monitoring Team was unable to locate documentation reflecting Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) involvement. NOPD subsequently confirmed CIT was involved and a CIT form was completed.

SMRH:227091476 12

-ii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 30 of 39 Appendix B

scene. At 42 minutes into the call, the BWC the officer confirming with the husband that the wife was cutting her arm with a steak knife. At 45 minutes into the call, the officer explains the situation to his supervisor by phone. He states he still has not gone to to the house to check on the mother’s welfare. At 53 minutes, the father states to the officers the mother may have left the house because she has a warrant. The first officer is waiting for the second officer to get pizza for the kids and then says he will go check the house. After approximately one hour, the officer responds to the house and the mother comes to the door and states “we had a disagreement.” The officer checks her arm and finds scrape marks, and transports her as a “103 M” (individual in mental health crisis) to the hospital.

The officer should have checked the female’s welfare as soon as he was told she had cut herself. The mother also was alleged to have been doing drugs and there was a young child left with her at the house. A history of this address shows prior domestic incidents. The call was cleared a 103 M and NAT, and, thus, no DV report was prepared.

 D-26531-17, District 3:

 Officers responded to a runaway or “a child out of control disobeying the mother.” It is unclear from NOPD’s documentation whether this matter was a domestic situation or not. The matter was cleared NAT.

 E-22927-17, District 3:

 Officers responded to a Code 2 priority DV call where a third-party caller reported a physical altercation with a gun involved. A male officer spoke to an older man at the door who stated he did not know who called the police, but he thought his grandson may have been in a fight with his girlfriend. The grandson came out of the door with a baby and said he had an argument with the child’s mother, but she subsequently left the house. The officers said “I will just 21 it,” which means “I will treat it as a complaint rather than as a DV call.” The officers cleared the matter NAT. There was no questioning about what occurred in the fight or why a gun was mentioned. The officers spoke to an involved party and should have written a report.

 F-09987-17, District 3:

 The CAD report identified this incident as a DV matter involving a mother and a teenage grandson that involved physical shoving. The grandmother agreed to let the alleged perpetrator back inside the house. The officers departed the scene without taking a report. The matter was cleared NAT.

 F-05683-17, District 3:

 Officers responded to a call about a disagreement over a father not allowing the complainant to take their daughter to the hospital. The officers directed the Mother to Family Court or Child Protective Services, and did not check the welfare of the child or speak to the father. The matter was cleared NAT. The Monitoring Team could not locate a report for this matter.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 31 of 39
Appendix B
 C15669-17, District 4:
 Officers responded to a physical fight between the complainant’s 12 and 13 year old children. The officers warned both children not to fight and stated if the police had to return to the house there would be a “different result.” While this may have been the appropriate action in this circumstance, the NOPD was unable to locate a report for this matter to allow the Monitoring Team’s to assess the propriety of the officers’ actions.
 C-20921-17, District 4:
 The officers responded to a call for a family dispute with a 13 year old niece the complainant stated was schizophrenic and had attacked the complainant. The incident also involved disputed allegations of the uncle placing his hands around the girl’s neck. The officer transported the girl to the hospital. NOPD was unable to locate a report for this incident.
 H30820-17, District 4:
 There was no report and no recording for this Item number.
 D- 12157-17, District 5:
 Officers responded to a third party report of a son and daughter-in-law fighting. The fighters were not on the scene when the officers arrived. NOPD could not locate a report for this matter.
 H-05872-17, District 6:
 Officers responded to a call for two teenage sons fighting. The mother asked the officers to help her get one of the sons to take his medicine – which he eventually did. The officers spoke with the youths for about 15 minutes to reduce the tension. While this may have been an appropriate response to the situation, NOPD was unable to locate a report for this incident to permit an assessment of the actions taken by the responding officers.
 G-04664-17, District 8:
 Officers responded to a girlfriend/boyfriend dispute with alcohol involved. The woman had a cut on her leg, but said it was from “walking through bushes.” Restaurant employees were told by the injured woman that the male had struck her and the employees had called the police. No report was located.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iv-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 32 of 39
Appendix C
RECLASSIFYING CALLS FROM PRIORITY (CODE 2) TO NON-EMERGENCY (CODE 1), AND CHANGING THE SIGNAL
 C-23625-17, District 2:
 The CAD report indicated a female was struck (aggravated battery) by a male friend the prior day. The call was initiated at 6:12 am and was dispatched almost four hours later. The reclassification appeared acceptable to the Monitoring Team because the incident had occurred much earlier, but it was a significant enough delay in responding that there was no one home and no report in the system, and, thus, cleared GOA.
 C-33437-17, District 7:
 The CAD reported a daughter and husband were arguing, but both parties had departed the location. While the reclassification appears acceptable, the matter was cleared GOA and the responding officers said they would send a report-writing unit. NOPD could not locate a report, however, and the system reflects the incident was cleared GOA.
 C33522-17, District 3:
 CAD reported a daughter refused to leave the location, but then agreed to leave. The reclassification appears acceptable, but there is a 2 hour and 17 minute delay from the incident to the arrival of the officers. The incident was cleared GOA and no report is available.
 D-100010-17, District 7:
 A report was written for this Item, but the delay in response was 7 hours and 35 minutes.
 D-13563-17, District 3:
 The CAD report indicated a male “took his girlfriend’s money and car and fled,” the caller is “hysterical,” and there is no answer on the callback. The incident occurred at 7:55 pm and was it dispatched almost four hours later. There is a very short BWC and it is cleared GOA.
 D-15205-17, District 5:
 The CAD stated a “female friend is breaking his car window and there is a knife involved.” The CAD further stated the phone was disconnected and the subject was trying to stab the caller. The incident occurred at 12:10 am and was dispatched almost two hours later. The CAD includes several notes that the call is being held and that there is no answer on the call back. The incident subsequently was changed to a Code 1 by a supervisor, and ultimately was cleared GOA at 2:22 am.

SMRH:227091476 12

-i-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 33 of 39
Appendix C
 D-28782-17, District 7:
 Officers responded to a problem with a son stealing money from his mother and other behavioral issues. The mother stated on the BWC “I called two days ago!” The officers do write a report.
 D-37548-17, District 7:
 The CAD report stated “ex-boyfriend armed with a gun walking to the complainant’s vehicle trying to start a fight, subject left and she tried to cancel, called back with a bad connection, multiple attempts at call back, 730 notified three times.” This incident involved a more than 15 hour delay in dispatch. The incident ultimately was marked GOA.
 D-38180-17, District 4:
 The CAD indicated a weapon involved and no respons from the complainant on the call back. The data available do not indicated why this call was reclassified. A report was written, but there are no remarks about supervisory approval.
 E-12059-17, District 8:
 Officers responded to a boyfriend beating his girlfriend. The call came in from the girl’s mother. The called stated the boyfriend is “violent and irate and is outside, but has access to a gun.” The available data do not indicated why this item was reclassified to a Code 1 call. The incident was reported at 10:21 am and dispatched at 10:46 am with an arrival of 11:14. There timeline reflects no sense of urgency on the part of NOPD. The male was arrested and the pat-down prior to the arrest looked minimal prior to placing the arrestee in the car.
 E-12625-17, District 7:
 The CAD report stated an incident occurred at 6:45 pm involving a fight in process and a male threatened to kill a female via telephone. There was a dispatch delay of about 4.5 hours. There was a reported history of domestic violence. It is unknown why there was a reclassification on this incident from a Code 2 to a Code 1 or why there was a delay in dispatching officers to the scene. It appears the female victim eventually went to the 7th District to make a report. The officers at the station did take photos and wrote a report and initiated an arrest warrant for the male.
 E-13554-17, District 5:
 The CAD report stated a male and his one year old baby were “put out of an apartment with nowhere to go.” The report indicated the male was reported to be irate. The call was initiated at 1:25 pm, but was not dispatched until 4:01 pm. On the call back, the male said he would go to the 5th District police station. There was no response at the door when officers finally arrived at the home, and the matter was cleared GOA.

SMRH:227091476 12

-ii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 34 of 39
Appendix C
 E-15811-17, District 4:
 Officers responded to a call where a female was “pushed out of a car and the suspect left in a vehicle.” The call was received at 8:53 and dispatched 38 minutes later. The call was cleared GOA and unknown why or who reclassified it.
 E-17195-17, District 7:
 The CAD report stated the mother called the police because “her daughter and her boyfriend are outside fighting and both armed with bricks.” They both had been drinking. The mother called back to report the male had left. The call was reclassified by a supervisor who was told twice the call was holding. The call was initiated at 10:35 am and not dispatched until 2:41 pm. The call was cleared GOA in the CAD, but the BWC was turned off before the clearance.
 E-25250-17, District 4:
 The CAD report stated that a “male is irate and yelling at his son.” The call was initiated in late May 2017 at 9:35 pm, but was dispatched more than 20 hours later. The man who answered the door when officers finally arrived said someone else had called and they were no longer home. The officers cleared the call GOA.
 E-27127-17, District 4:
 The CAD report stated the complainant’s ex-boyfriend took her phone and was threatening to cut his wrist. The CAD also stated the male subject left on foot. The report indicated a past history of domestic violence. The call was received in late May 2017, and was dispatched 10.5 hours after receipt. A supervisor reclassified the incident to a Code 1 after it was dispatched, and the responding officers cleared it GOA.
 E-30891-17, District 7:
 The CAD report state a boyfriend pushed a girlfriend, and the altercation still was in process. The call was received at 11:27 pm and dispatched almost 10 hours later at 09:12 am. The call was cleared GOA.
 E-35737-17, District 2:
 The CAD stated the husband struck the complainant and her children, and the husband had a knife. The CAD also indicated a male was damaging the residence and a female was crying hysterically on the telephone line. The call was received at 12:19 am and dispatched almost immediately. The patrol unit responded to the scene within five minutes. It is unknown why this incident was reclassified to a Code 1 call. Further, the report is inaccurate, as the reflects only an oral altercation, yet the BWC recording shows the son saying he was chocked by the male. The male had a medical history of schizophrenia but there is no mention of the threats of choking in the report.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 35 of 39 Appendix C

 F-02188-17, District 3:
 A report was written in June 2017, but there are no BWC recordings for this number.
 F04683-17, District 2:
 The CAD report stated the ex-boyfriend was drinking and had a gun, and that “he was threatening her and burning her property. Needs medical attention.” The suspect was on the scene at approximately 9:24 pm. The priority was reclassified five minutes later to a Code 1. The call was dispatched at 3:05 am. There is no report and it is unknown why the call was reclassified.
 F07221-17, District 2:
 The CAD report indicate there was a dispute over dropping off children to another parent and trying to obtain clothing. The call was appropriately reclassified, but the report was made nine days later.
 F19282-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated the son and his girlfriend were having anargument and that the male owns a gun. The CAD further indicated the male is an off-duty deputy sheriff and is “outside on the patio.” No report or BWC’s were located and the call was cleared GOA.
 F-23806-17, District 5:
 The BWC showed an officer knocking gently on the door with no response. There are two BWCs with the same Item number, but hours apart. One officer is overheard stating the call came in 10 hours after the initial call was received. The call is cleared GOA and there is no report in the system.
 F-30486-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated the caller’s son broke into the caller’s home. The caller informed the call-taker she was arguing with the son, but the son has a gun in his possession. Both parties are on the scene when the call comes in, and the call-taker can hear the argument in the background. The call was reclassified to a Code 1 call by a supervisor, and the officer arrived on the scene 34.5 hours after the initial call. There is no report in the system.
 G05199-17, District 1:
 The CAD report indicated “the caller was irate in the background.” There were two officers on the scene, but only one BWC was located. A supervisor reduced the call to Code 1, which received no response by the evening shift. The evening shift supervisor was advised the call was pending. Officers arrived 3.5 hours after the call was initiated and no report was located in the system.

SMRH:227091476 12

-iv-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 36 of 39
Appendix C
 G05567-17, District 2:
 The CAD report indicated there was someone in immediate danger and someone needed medical attention. The CAD also indicated a duplicate item number. . The item number shows no arrival and there is no report in the system for this number.
 G-05592-17, District 5:
 The CAD report indicated an ex-girlfriend was “beating on the complainant’s window and trying to gain entry.” The CAD report further indicated children were present at the scene, no one was in danger, a window was broken, and blinds were broken. A NOPD supervisor was notified of the call and he advised to send the first available unit. A voicemail was received on several callbacks. Officers responded 27 minutes after the call was received and 20 minutes after it was reclassified as a Code 1 call. A report was written during the incident.
 G-34898-17, District 1:
 The CAD report indicated a female caller reported being followed for the past month by her child’s father who previously “fought the police and has been arrested.” The caller was recently served with child support papers. A supervisor reclassified the call to a Code 1 five minutes after the call and advised the dispatcher to send the first available car. The arrival time was about 2.5 hours after the call was initiated. There was no answer on the call back and the BWC was less than five minutes in length. There is no report in the system for this Item number.
 G38980-17, District 7:
 The CAD report indicated a court order allowing a father to pick up his son and threats “to kill him if he came to get the child.” The CAD report further indicated both parties “have access to guns.” A supervisor was notified of the call and there was no answer on the callback. The reclassification was made one minute after the call was received. The officer arrived on the scene ten hours after the call was received and there was no answer at the door. There is no report on file for this Item number.
 H-02476-17, District 1:
 The CAD report indicated the caller was armed with a kitchen knife and was threatening to flatten the tires of the caller’s car. A supervisor was alerted to the matter and reclassified it to a Code 1. A sergeant’s BWC recorded the sergeant telling other officers “this is a good call to hold for the night shift.” The sergeant also related that he was trying to hold the call longer because if he held it long enough “the participants will generally resolve the situation themselves.” A DV report was written by the responding officers.

SMRH:227091476 12

-v-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 37 of 39
Appendix C
 H-14973-17, District 7:
 The CAD report stated the complainant’s boyfriend was trying to throw her clothing from a balcony and that there were children present. A supervisor was notified of the call and reclassified it from a Code 2 to a Code 1. A second call indicated the woman and twoyear old son were locked out of the apartment by the male. The supervisor again was notified, but a callback to the complainant was unanswered. The original call was reclassified 1 minute and 11 seconds after it was initiated and the response time was delayed 6.5 hours. When the officer arrived there was no one home and it was cleared GOA with no report.
 H-15364-17, District 4:
 The CAD report indicated a male was stabbed twice in the chest by his wife and left the scene on foot. A supervisor and EMS were notified. The supervisor then reclassified the call from a Code 2 to a Code 1. The male was located and the officer stated on his BWC, “the cuts were very minor, he probably “doesn’t even need a band-aid.” The officer asked the stabbed subject, “What do you want to do with your two little cuts?” When he discouraged the male from going to the hospital, the stabbed subject said he would find his own way to the hospital. The paramedics wanted to transport the victim to the hospital because they were unsure how deep the cuts were and because he was complaining of chest pain. A lieutenant told the officer how to clear it, but the officer was discouraged because he felt the charges wouldn’t “fly in court” due to what he believed to be the nature of the wounds. The officer told the Lieutenant he would “do it, but it’ll be a waste of time.” The report indicated the cuts were minor even though the paramedics were unsure of the seriousness of the injury. The officer discounted the male’s statements and discouraged him from getting assistance – counter to NOPD policy.
 H-23021-17, District 5:
 The CAD report indicated a fight between a girlfriend and boyfriend. There were 14 BWC’s on this Item number. The call was reclassified because the male walked into the 5th District station to explain what happened. A report was written.
 H-30615-17, District 3:
 The CAD report only indicated that the caller was not on the scene. There are no BWC’s for this Item but there are dispatch, arrival, and clearance times.
 H-35624-17, District 1:
 The CAD reported a male and female were on the scene and the male wanted to speak to an officer because he said the female wanted to file a false report. The call was dispatched within seven minutes and the officer was on the scene for twelve minutes. There is not a report in the system for this incident.

SMRH:227091476 12

-vi-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 38 of 39
Appendix C
 I-09084-17, District 1:
 The CAD report indicated the complainant’s girlfriend would not return his belongings and “is trying to start a fight with other people at the location.” A supervisor reclassified the call three minutes after it was received, and the officer arrived 51 minutes after the call was dispatched. The BWC recording appeared to be in a restaurant. There was no indication in the CAD as to why the call was reclassified to a Code 1 call. There was no report located in the system.

SMRH:227091476 12

-vii-

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 542-1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 39 of 39
Appendix D
NOPD Domestic Violence Patrol Response Corrective Action Plan [Submitted to Monitoring Team and Judge Morgan October 2017]
1. Discipline: NOPD reviewed a random sample of reclassified domestic incidents from each district and initiated 39 disciplinary investigations, which are ongoing. Through swift, widespread disciplinary action, NOPD has firmly communicated the need to handle domestic violence incidents appropriately.
2. Policy emphasis: NOPD implemented an emergency revision to the domestic violence policy to ensure the supervisors are involved in all signal changes of domestic disturbance calls. The original language required supervisors to approve the signal change of any domestic violence call but did not specifically require supervisory approval for any domestic disturbance. The new language explicitly requires supervisors to approve the signal change of any domestic violence or domestic disturbance call, and supervisors must specifically inquire as to why the signal change needs to happen before executing the signal change.
3. Comprehensive policy review: The Compliance Bureau has undertaken a comprehensive policy review in an attempt to identify where additional clarification or streamlining may be possible. The Compliance Bureau will discuss any possible changes with Chief Viverette.
4. Roll call training: The new policy changes were covered for three consecutive days in roll call training throughout the districts.
5. Compliance audits: The Compliance Bureau will conduct ongoing reviews of signal changes for domestic disturbances and calls marked GOA where the officer interacted with one of the parties. The results will be presented in a scorecard and in MAX.
6. Investigating locations with repeat calls after a signal change or GOA: The Compliance Bureau will analyze repeat calls for service at locations where calls were reclassified or marked GOA after spending significant time on scene. NOPD will conduct additional follow up on these locations as necessary to ensure the safety of victims.
7. Prioritizing dispatch of domestic violence calls: All non-emergency (Code 1) domestic violence calls will be dispatched in the top priority code 1 classification (Code lA). NOPD has lowered the dispatch priority for other calls to elevate the response to domestic violence calls. This should help improve response times to non-emergency domestic violence calls.
8. Trend analysis: The Compliance Bureau will monitor trends in signal changes, response times, and policy compliance to assess whether these reforms are having the necessary impact.

SMRH:227091476 12

-i-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 43
2017 Annual Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree April 10, 2018
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 43 Page 2 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Table of Contents
I. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................... 3 II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 III. SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES....................................................................................... 7 IV. SUMMARY OF KEY ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS........................................................................... 9 V. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY ........................................................................................ 13 VI. USE OF FORCE......................................................................................................................................... 14
A. Use of Force Generally ............................................................................................................. 14 B. Force Investigation Team (FIT)............................................................................................ 15 C. Canine........................................................................................................................................... 16 D. Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW) ................................................................................ 16 VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM.......................................................................................................... 17 VIII. STOPS, SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS.................................................................................................. 18 IX. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 19 X. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS................................................................................................................ 20 XI. BIAS-FREE POLICING ........................................................................................................................... 21 XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS .................................................................................................. 22 XIII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT............................................................................................................. 24 XIV. RECRUITMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 28 XV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING........................................................................................ 29 XVI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 32 XVII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS............................................................... 34 XVIII. SUPERVISION .......................................................................................................................................... 35 XIX. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 37 XX. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION .............. 38 XXI. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT ................................................................................................ 39 XXII. FUTURE MONITORING ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 40 XXIII. POLICY APPROVALS ............................................................................................................................. 41
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 3 of 43
Page 3 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

I. Glossary of Acronyms

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBT” “MAX” “MMPT” “MOU”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Management Analysis for Xcellence Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 4 of 43
Page 4 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSE” “PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Office of Public Secondary Employment Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 5 of 43
Page 5 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. Introduction
The NOPD today is undeniably a better, stronger, more professional organization than it was when the Monitoring Team began its work in 2013. Over the course of the last four and a half years, the NOPD has brought itself into compliance with many of the Consent Decree requirements. More importantly, NOPD has established many of the policies and procedures needed to achieve and sustain the constitutional policing, public safety, and community trust called for by the Consent Decree. The Department has promoted reform-minded leaders, adopted new policies, documented new processes in Standard Operating Procedures, and made far more data available to the public than in the past. In short, NOPD has developed and implemented the building blocks necessary to transform the NOPD into a police department of which the New Orleans community rightfully can be proud.
Credit for this progress belongs to many groups and individuals, including NOPD leadership; the majority of NOPD members, who have embraced reform as good for the Department; civic groups; and the New Orleans community. Credit also goes to the City leaders who have provided the resources and support to facilitate NOPD’s so-far-successful journey along the path to full and sustained Consent Decree compliance.
The City Council, for example, adopted a Regulation formalizing the City’s commitment to the Consent Decree’s core principles. Passed pursuant to Section 4-107 of the Home Rule Charter and Section 2-1000 of the City Code, the new Regulation covers use of force, crisis intervention, sexual assault and domestic violence response, community policing, the training academy, body-worn cameras, transparency, compliance, and audits. The adoption of this Regulation was a notable and praise-worthy achievement. While such regulations can be revised by future leaders, they cannot be revised by a future NOPD superintendent alone, and they cannot be revised without official, public action.
The NOPD’s success in putting in place the core structures of constitutional policing does not, however, mean its journey is at an end. Policies, procedures, and resources do not translate into constitutional practices overnight. As we have reported previously, the Consent Decree’s ultimate purpose is to change policing on the street. The Consent Decree paragraphs relating to training; bias-free policing; stops, searches, and arrests; close and effective supervision; and community engagement all play a key role in effecting such a change. Compliance with these elements requires consistently and repeatedly educating officers on the Consent Decree’s requirements, monitoring officers’ performance, and demonstrating where and how officers’ actions meet or fail to meet the Consent Decree requirements —through review of video footage and reports—until the “right way of doing things” becomes ingrained. The goal is to reinforce the new policies and procedures until compliance with them becomes second nature. This process takes time, but it is the key to sustained reform.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 6 of 43 Page 6 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Our future monitoring efforts will focus on NOPD taking the steps necessary to ensure the reforms in the Consent Decree are delivered to and observable by the people of New Orleans. We will examine how officers interact with residents on the streets, complete field interview cards, and draft police reports. We will monitor supervisors to ensure they provide the close and effective supervision that is not only required by the Consent Decree, but is critical to ingraining reforms in officers’ behavior. We will work closely with residents and community stakeholders to understand their perception of the NOPD’s reforms and whether the reforms are making a difference in the lives of New Orleanians.
No one should confuse the need for more work by the NOPD with a lack of progress. NOPD has made significant progress, but ensuring the changes NOPD has made result in real, measurable, and sustainable constitutional policing cannot be rushed. The Monitoring Team (and the U.S. Department of Justice) will continue to conduct additional audits and evaluations before we can conclude with confidence the NOPD has achieved success in these more challenging areas. We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure the promise of effective, constitutional policing is fulfilled for the people of New Orleans.
While the Department’s success in no way relieves the pressure on the Department to continue its reform journey, it does give us confidence the City is on the right path. The NOPD has proven itself to be a respected, forward-thinking, reform-minded police agency to which other agencies now routinely come for guidance. The Monitoring Team looks forward to continuing to work with the NOPD toward full and sustained compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 7 of 43
Page 7 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. Summary Of Monitoring Activities
The journey we embarked upon with the NOPD and the New Orleans community in 2013 has been an eventful one for us and, we are pleased to report, a positive and consequential one for New Orleans. NOPD’s commitment to reform has delivered substantial progress toward accomplishing the transformation contemplated by the Consent Decree. How do we know? Because we have observed every step along the way, providing guidance, contributing expertise and technical assistance, working collaboratively with NOPD to implement change, and ensuring the change is real, meaningful, and sustained.
The Monitoring Team audits and reviews the NOPD’s compliance with Consent Decree requirements and implementation of its goals. We review NOPD audio and video footage and records at the district and special unit level. We conduct spot audits, review documents, observe training, assess trends, analyze data, attend community meetings, and observe departmental community policing efforts. We conduct interviews and surveys. We review FIT, Use of Force Review Board investigations, and PIB investigations and adjudications.
We work closely with the Superintendent, deputy chiefs, lieutenants, unit commanders, sergeants, and civilian employees initially to understand how they have discharged their responsibilities; and, then, help to implement the changes mandated by the Consent Decree. We contribute our team’s expertise to help NOPD adopt policing best practices. For example, we relied on our team’s and DOJ’s expertise to assist NOPD in revising its policies, standard operating procedures, Academy curriculum, and Academy lesson plans. We helped NOPD completely restructure its Special Victims and domestic violence units to: address serious deficiencies in its response to, and investigation of, sexual assaults and domestic violence; revise its use of force policies and practices; establish an effective Use of Force Review Board; and completely restructure its disciplinary investigations and adjudications process to increase independence and objectivity. In 2017, our focus was on overhauling the NOPD Training Academy, the results of which are discussed below.
We have many different tools available to us to assess NOPD’s performance and evaluate whether the structural changes are manifesting themselves in how NOPD officers do their jobs day-to-day. We review police reports (EPRs), use of force reports, field interview cards (FICs), and camera recordings (including BWC, controlled electrical weapon (CEW), in-car camera, and interrogation video). This footage gives us an exceptional window into day-to-day policing and officers’ interactions with the public. Additionally, NOPD’s adoption of its MAX supervision system and Insight early intervention system give us unprecedented access to data concerning NOPD’s performance. We go “hands on” to review officer performance in the districts and special units.
We review line-up and custodial interrogation logs. We inspect the body worn and incar cameras regularly. We inspect the interrogation rooms. We review investigative files. We
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 8 of 43 Page 8 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
study supervisory deployments and assignments. We check to see whether NOPD is making information available concerning how complaints can be filed as required by the Consent Decree. We ride along with NOPD officers to observe how they work and the challenges they face to better understand their perspectives and the perspectives of the victims of crime. For example, it was information we learned from officers during our ride alongs that led to the formation of a burden reduction working group within the NOPD. This working group brings officers of different ranks together to explore innovative ways to increase officer efficiency and to achieve the goals of the Consent Decree.
Our work extends beyond the Department to organizations that help NOPD fulfill its public-service missions, such as the Orleans Communications District (i.e., the police dispatch organization), the DA’s office, the Orleans Parish Prison, and New Orleans EMS. We work with individuals and organizations who work with NOPD, such as the Family Justice Center, and advocacy groups, such as Breakout, El Congreso, VAYLA and New Orleans residents who contact us to share their experiences and views. In 2017 we issued special reports on: (1) Supervision Policies and Practices, (2) officer selection practices, (3) NOPD background Office of the Consent Decree Monitor investigation practices, (4) use of force, (5) our biennial survey of the community, police and detainees, and (6) domestic violence. Judge Morgan also held public hearings on: (1) Insight (NOPD’s Early Warning System), (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) training, (4) domestic violence, and (5) the Ethical Policing is Courageous (EPIC) program.
In short, over the past four and a half years, we have studied every aspect of NOPD from top to bottom.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 9 of 43
Page 9 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. Summary of Key Activities and Findings
Policies – NOPD continues to review and revise its policies to comply with the Consent Decree and best practices. Although this comprehensive review and approval process has been time-consuming, in terms of both scope and the level of detail the process requires, NOPD has devoted appropriate resources, and dedicated professionals who continue to work diligently to keep NOPD moving forward toward completion of this task. To date, the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice have reviewed, revised, and ultimately approved almost two hundred NOPD policies.
Use of Force - The Monitoring Team reviews all serious uses of force and regularly samples other uses of force. We previously issued a Special Report1 on NOPD’s Use of Force. We will issue an updated report in 2018.
Force Investigative Team (FIT) - We reviewed FIT investigations, including the review of four officer-involved shootings. We also provided technical assistance to the Force Investigation Team’s development of an operations manual.
SWAT - We conducted an in-depth review of NOPD SWAT’s operation plans, after-action reports, deployment protocols, and member tenure. We also performed an assessment of the Special Operation Division culture by reviewing use of force and resisting arrest reports, injury reports, BWC videos, civilian and rank generated complaints, and suspect interrogations. A special report outlining these findings will be issued in Spring 2018.
Canine - As we previously reported, the NOPD canine unit was successfully transformed early in the Consent Decree process. We continue to monitor the unit’s compliance with the Consent Decree. There were no off-leash deployments or canine bites in 2017.
Controlled Electronic Weapons (CEW) - We reviewed NOPD’s uses of Controlled Electronic Weapons (CEW), often colloquially referred to as Tasers, through a random sample of CEW uses, as part of a broader review of Uses of Force that were investigated by FIT. A special report outlining these findings will be issued in 2018.
Stops, Searches, and Arrests (SSA) - We reviewed police reports, warrant affidavits, and BWC footage to determine whether Stops, Searches, and Arrests (SSAs) are being conducted in compliance with law, NOPD policy, and the Consent Decree. We found potential non-compliance in approximately 20% of the BWC videos reviewed. We note, however, that,

1

See Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree on

NOPD Use of Force, May 5, 2017, available at

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/517-

1%20Monitor’s%20Special%20Report%20on%20the%20NOPD’s%20Uses%20of%20Force.pdf.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 10 of 43
Page 10 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

according to NOPD, some of the findings may be attributable to an internal systems error with the Electronic Police Report, rather than substantive non-compliance. If, instead, our findings are accurate, this is an unacceptably high level and we remain concerned. We will be working closely with NOPD to focus on this issue and we have established monthly SSA-focused conference calls to ensure SSA compliance receives the attention it needs.
Photographic Line-Ups – We regularly audit photographic line-ups as part of our monthly district-focused audits. We found most districts have demonstrated full compliance with the Consent Decree requirements in this area.
Bias-Free Policing – We found NOPD has adopted policies and conducted trainings to implement the Consent Decree’s bias-free policing requirements. While proving lack of bias can be challenging, the data and information available to us demonstrate continuing progress.
Policing Free of Gender Bias – NOPD continues to make progress toward compliance with Gender-Bias Free policing. The SVS unit continues to perform well. As we have reported previously,2 however, individual patrol officer response to sexual assault and domestic violence crimes continues to be uneven. NOPD responded to our concern by taking prompt action to implement a corrective action plan. Additionally, NOPD initiated disciplinary proceedings against officers who violated NOPD’s DV policies. We continue to monitor this issue closely and work with NOPD to ensure DV calls are handled appropriately
Community Engagement – NOPD adopted and is in the process of implementing a community engagement plan that reflects and advances Superintendent Harrison’s commitment to community policing. A key element of that plan is the creation of community policing signal codes that will enable NOPD to track and manage community policing activities and responses to calls for community policing services. Each district has developed a districtspecific community policing plan based on priorities established by focus groups including district residents. The Department conducts public MAX (Management Analytics for eXcellence) meetings that provide district residents with information concerning community policing in their districts and an opportunity for residents to provide feedback to NOPD concerning its community policing efforts. We view these actions, and others detailed in this Report, as important steps in satisfying the community engagement provisions of the Consent Decree and we continue to monitor them closely.
Survey - Our 2017 biennial survey of residents, officers, and detainees revealed that respondents support NOPD’s focus on community policing and engagement, as measured by the

2

See Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree

on Domestic Violence Patrol Response, December 21, 2017, available at

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/12-

1924%20DV%20Special%20Report.pdf.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 11 of 43
Page 11 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
level of satisfaction with NOPD services.3 While the feedback generally was positive, there remains dissatisfaction with the timeliness of response to calls and impact on crime. Additionally, a majority of respondents believed that NOPD engages in racial profiling and expects the African-American community to be harassed by NOPD officers.
Recruitment – We conducted an in-depth review of NOPD’s recruitment policies and practices, including recruit background checks. Our findings, which we reported in January 2017,4 found numerous deficiencies, including insufficient training of background investigators, incomplete investigations, and a flawed review process. NOPD responded by appointing a new Recruitment Director to guide and oversee changes. We believe the corrective action plan developed by NOPD is appropriate, and have seen improvements since the issuance of our January report. We will continue to monitor hiring and recruitment closely.
Academy and In-Service Training – This topic was the object of heightened focus by us in 2017. Our findings and NOPD’s reforms were the subject of a public hearing in November 2017. While our monitoring revealed numerous deficiencies, the attention devoted to correcting them by NOPD, with the assistance of our team, has resulted in significant improvement. In response to our finding that lesson plans were of inconsistent quality and too often not reviewed by Academy staff, we worked with NOPD and DOJ to conduct a review of all lesson plans. This review led to improvements in the quality of lesson plans as well as a lesson plan tracking system.
Officer Assistance and Support (OAP) – We reviewed and approved the OAP policy, lesson plans, classes, and protocols. The classes have been well received. The Department continues weekly training and officer awareness outreach. NOPD, working with experts, has created a ground-breaking officer support program called EPIC, which stands for Ethical Policing is Courageous. EPIC seeks to train and empower each of the Department’s more than 1100 officers, supervisors, and leadership personnel to effectively and safely intervene to prevent misconduct. EPIC is a form of officer assistance, not discipline, because its principles teach officers that intervention and prevention can save officers’ lives and careers, as well as protect the public. At its simplest, it gives officers tools and strategies to protect their fellow officers.

3

See Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree on the

Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey, July 24, 2017, available at

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/12-

1924%20OCDM%20Second%20Biennial.pdf.

4

See Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department on NOPD

Background Investigation Practices, January 18, 2017, available at

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Docket%20Items/12-

1924%20report%20on%20nopd%20background%20inv%20practices.pdf.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 12 of 43 Page 12 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Performance Evaluations and Promotions – We reviewed performance evaluations in Spring 2017. We found deficiencies and weaknesses in the evaluation process. NOPD responded by revising its performance evaluation process. We will review annual performance evaluations in the first and second quarters of 2018.
Supervision – NOPD made significant progress in 2017 toward meeting the Consent Decree’s supervision requirements. Nevertheless, our reviews show mixed results concerning the processes and practices that enable effective supervision, including ensuring supervisors work the same shifts as the officers they supervise. This is obviously a critical component of effective supervision. NOPD has implemented Insight, a personnel management and early warning system, that will help NOPD track data that may suggest an officer needs assistance. We have found that supervisors are still learning how to use the system effectively, which is to be expected with a new system.
Video and Audio Recording – We found partial compliance with these provisions, in part due to maintenance issues. NOPD also has been unable to demonstrate that supervisors incorporate knowledge gained from video and audio recording in their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers.
Secondary Employment System – The Office of Secondary Employment (OPSE) continues to work well and is in compliance with virtually all applicable Consent Decree provisions. The parties requested certain amendments to the Consent Decree in light of current approved operations. Since 2014, when OPSE began managing all NOPD secondary employment, there have been consistent year-over-year increases in officer participation, hours worked, customers served, and gross revenues.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication – We reviewed PIB administrative investigations. We found PIB to be in general compliance, although we noted deficiencies with respect to credibility assessments and timely-completion of investigations. Both issues require additional training. We also attend PIB in-service training on complaint intake. We worked with PIB to develop a new Force Investigation Team manual.
Transparency and Oversight – NOPD is in compliance with the transparency and oversight provisions.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 13 of 43 Page 13 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
V. POLICIES AND TRAINING GENERALLY The process implemented by the NOPD, DOJ, and the Monitoring Team from 2014 through 2017 to facilitate the (1) drafting, (2) review, (3) revision, and (4) approval of Department policies continues to be effective. In 2017, NOPD completed substantial review and revision of most material policies. The Monitoring Team anticipates all policies will have been reviewed and approved by the end of the first quarter of 2018. Appendix 1 lists policies approved in 2017 and all policies approved as of the date of this Report.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 14 of 43
Page 14 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VI. USE OF FORCE
NOPD continues to progress toward compliance with all Use of Force Consent Decree requirements. As a general matter, NOPD has adopted appropriate policies and rules for regulating use of force. Where we see ongoing non-compliance is in the districts by patrol officers and supervisors. For example we continue to observe officers failing to file use of force reports in a timely fashion. We also see the use of boilerplate or conclusory language in use of force statements. Supervisors do not consistently report to the scene to investigate lower level uses of force. They also do not consistently document findings regarding whether the use of force was appropriate. These findings are consistent with our general observation that, while NOPD has established compliant policies, procedures, and training, there remains a need to focus on officers’ and supervisors’ conduct until it is consistently compliant. Consequently, going forward we will be devoting additional focus to patrol officer and supervisor compliance.
A. Use of Force Generally
The Monitoring Team continues to review all serious uses of force, as defined in the Consent Decree.5 We also continue to review randomly selected use of force reports to ensure NOPD reports uses of force accurately, meaningfully, and with appropriate oversight by supervisors and, where necessary, NOPD PIB. We previously issued a Special Report focusing on NOPD Use of Force.6
We also continue to review FIT investigative cases presented to the Use of Force Review Board. In this context, we most recently observed the Board’s deliberations for four officerinvolved shootings: a July 2015 officer-involved shooting, a Fall 2017 accidental shooting incident, a January 24, 2017 shooting in New Orleans East, and the shooting of the subject who murdered Officer McNeil.
Beyond our observations of the Use of Force Review Board, we conducted an in-depth review of NOPD SWAT’s operational plans, after-action reports, deployment protocols, and member tenure (CD Paragraphs 70-75). We also conducted a Special Operation Division (SOD)

5

The Consent Decree defines a “serious use of force” as: (1) all uses of lethal force by an NOPDofficer; (2) all

critical firearm discharges by an NOPD officer; (3) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in serious physical

injury or requiring hospitalization; (4) all neck holds; (5) all uses of force by an NOPD officer resulting in a loss of

consciousness; (6) all canine bites; (7) more than two applications of an CEW on an individual during a single

interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and whether the applications are by the same or

different officers, or CEW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and (8) any

strike, blow, kick, CEW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject.

6

Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree on

NOPD Uses of Force, available at,

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/517-

1%20Monitor’s%20Special%20Report%20on%20the%20NOPD’s%20Uses%20of%20Force.pdf

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 15 of 43
Page 15 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
“Culture Assessment” by reviewing use of force and resisting arrest reports, injury reports, BWC videos, civilian and rank-generated complaints, and suspect interrogations. A special report outlining these findings will be issued in 2018. Our review demonstrates NOPD is in compliance with the majority of the general use of force provisions.
B. Force Investigation Team (FIT)
We provided technical assistance to NOPD’s efforts to develop its Force Investigation Team Manual and its Critical Incident Response Guide & Investigative Procedures. (FIT Manual). The FIT Manual provides an overview of FIT, including its history, mission and organizational structure, excerpts of the relevant Consent Decree provisions, the responsibilities of FIT members, FIT rules and procedures, and other information relevant to FIT’s responsibilities. The Monitoring Team also provided Technical Assistance to NOPD with developing a template for conducting administrative investigations. This template acts as an operational guide for FIT team members when conducting administrative investigations. We have observed FIT’s investigations. Overall they are conducted in compliance with the Manual and the template. Although we continue to identify instances in which the Manual directives are not followed, in those instances FIT has addressed the issue appropriately. FIT also has been receptive to the best practices guidance provided by our team. NOPD has demonstrated compliance with the requirement to establish a Force Investigation Team.
One deficiency noted through audits, reviews, and observation is that while many investigations are complete and thorough, some NOPD investigators continue to ask “leading questions” (i.e., questions that suggest a certain answer to the subject of the interview) while conducting interviews in criminal and administrative investigations. This issue is being addressed through additional training and the development of operational guidelines.
An important public safety issue addressed this year, as part of the Monitoring Team’s policy revision and approval project, was the conduct of non-NOPD law enforcement personnel operating in New Orleans. If these personnel, who are not subject to the Consent Decree or to NOPD’s rules, are conducting law enforcement operations in New Orleans, they pose a risk that the public will be exposed to differing and perhaps conflicting law enforcement actions. To mitigate this risk and improve coordination and consistency among law enforcement agencies operating in New Orleans, NOPD entered into several Memoranda of Understanding with a number of local police agencies in an effort to delineate more clearly the role of non-NOPD police agencies operating in New Orleans. NOPD also drafted, and we approved, Chapter 1.1 to make clear the scope and limits of NOPD officers’ authority and the Department’s zero tolerance of abuse of law enforcement authority.
Chapter 1.1 also describes the limits of non-NOPD law enforcement agencies operating within New Orleans. Specifically, it provides “Law Enforcement agencies other than the NOPD operating within the geographic limits of the City of New Orleans may exercise only the specific
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 16 of 43
Page 16 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
authority granted to the by law or pursuant to a grant of authority by the Superintendent of Police as authorized by law.”7
Importantly, Chapter 1.1 also establishes NOPD FIT’s authority to investigate uses of force by both NOPD and non-NOPD officers. The Memoranda of Understanding outline the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement agencies operating in New Orleans, and clarifies how future uses of force would be investigated. The Monitoring Team commends the Department for proactively seeking cooperation and coordination with its neighboring agencies. Judge Morgan hosted a public hearing on this matter of importance to the Department’s effectiveness in meeting constitutional policing goals.
C. Canine
NOPD is currently in compliance with the requirements regarding use of canines. NOPD implemented the approved canine policy and SOP, both of which were approved by DOJ and our team. These changes have had an impact. In 2017 there were no canine bites or off-leash deployments, reflecting the impact of a stricter policy, training on the policy, and close and effective supervision.
D. Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW)
We review uses of Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW) (commonly referred to as Tasers). NOPD has implemented appropriate policies governing the use of CEWs. Our review of CEW uses demonstrates that the majority are compliant with NOPD policy and the Consent Decree’s requirements. Additionally, CEW uses are reviewed by NOPD’s FIT. We monitor FIT investigations and provide technical assistance, as called for under the Consent Decree, in the form of advice and guidance requirements to assist FIT in conducting thorough and impartial investigations. Where we find errors or omissions in FIT investigations we report these to FIT and work with it to address them. FIT has been receptive and responsive to our guidance and suggestions, although this is not to say there are not occasionally differences of opinion. With respect to CEW uses, we have pointed out deficiencies in FIT investigations, which FIT remedied.

7

Policy 1.1, Policy Statement.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 17 of 43 Page 17 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM Section IV of the Consent Decree requires NOPD to “minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder.” To achieve this outcome, NOPD agreed to create a properly trained Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). The NOPD has developed its CIT program (including a policy, Academy curriculum, a training program, and training materials) and has provided basic training to all new officers and specialty training to more than 140 volunteer CIT officers, as required by the Consent Decree. This reflects a higher percentage than the 20% required by the Consent Decree. The Department also has trained local social workers, and at least two crisis transportation service volunteers, and is extending availability of CIT training to those with a reserve officer classification. The Monitoring Team has seen CIT officers in action and has spoken to numerous officers and community members regarding the CIT program. Commentary, so far, has been positive. NOPD has established a CIT Planning Committee that includes partners set out at Paragraph 112 of the Consent Decree, each entity has participated in at least one Planning Committee meeting. This year, NOPD Policy Chapter 41.25 Crisis Intervention and Chapter 41.26 Crisis Transportation Service were approved, which outline the CIT selection process, officer duties, training, and policies. CIT training will continue to be implemented for recruits and incorporated into in-service training. This training integrates local experts and covers the topical areas outlined in Section IV of the Consent Decree. The new 4-hour in-service course is designed to prepare officers to recognize crisis intervention symptoms, incorporate the practice of verbal de-escalation, identify tactics to handle aggressive behavior, and guide officers on how to consider diversion options and available alternatives to the mental hospital when addressing critical incidents.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 18 of 43
Page 18 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VIII. STOPS, SEARCHES, AND ARRESTS
The Monitoring team regularly reviews police reports, warrant affidavits, and BWC footage to determine whether stops, searches, and arrests (SSA) comply with the law and NOPD policy and whether police reports accurately describe the officer’s conduct. This remains an area of concern given repeated findings across audits of possible CD violations in approximately 20% of the BWC videos reviewed.8 To address this, the Monitoring Team and NOPD conduct monthly SSA-focused conference calls with NOPD’s Compliance Bureau to explore these ongoing issues. The Monitoring Team also worked with NOPD to develop a new SSA auditing form and process. The initial findings from our Quarter 1 Stops, Searches, and Arrests Audit will serve as a basis to conduct a more in-depth, targeted review in the near future.

8

NOPD advises that part of the non-compliance is attributable to placement of checkboxes in

the Field Investigative Card (FIC), which was causing officers to erroneously report a search as a pat

down. NOPD revised the form in early 2018 and will retrain officers on its use. We of course will

monitor the data to assess the extent to which the change improves compliance.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 19 of 43
Page 19 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
IX. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS
We have observed steady progress toward department-wide compliance with the Consent Decree requirements for custodial interrogations and detective selection/training. Most districts audited in 2017 demonstrated high levels of compliance with requirements for custodial interrogations. All districts and specialized units reviewed in 2017 were in compliance with the requirement to designate interview rooms and ensure they are equipped with functioning audio and video recording technology that allows for recording and maintenance of all phases of interrogations. We observed no indication of physical force or a threat to carry out harm to anyone, In addition, NOPD continues to make progress in Limited English Proficiency requirements across locations audited. All the monitored interrogations were conducted in English. The Department has ELSAs (“Enabling Language Service Anywhere” a mobile interpretation device) available in the event another language is required during an interrogation.
Our inspections found interrogations in all districts were recorded in their entirety. There was no indication of a pre-interview. No recording failures were found during any audit. Most officers and detectives conducting interrogations did not take notes, but this is not required by the Consent Decree. When detectives took notes, however, we found they were preserved and were made available for inspection from the case file. SOD, however, has yet to provide evidence of compliance with new detective training or in-service training.9
Paragraph 170 specifies criteria for training new detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. NOPD is still developing these materials. Once they are developed and reviewed, we expect paragraph 170 will be satisfied.

9

NOPD’s Compliance Bureau reviewed SOD’s training records in January 2018 and found the unit in

compliance with Consent Decree requirements. The Monitoring Team will be conducting its own review in the

Spring of 2018.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 20 of 43
Page 20 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
X. PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UPS
Most districts demonstrated full compliance with the Consent Decree requirements for photographic line-up processes and procedures. NOPD has maintained compliance with CD Paragraphs 174 – 176, as we previously have reported. These paragraphs require NOPD to keep a complete record of each photo line-up display procedure and the results. Partial compliance was noted in CD Paragraph 173 due to the observed use of dissimilar “filler” photographs in some instances.10
The Monitoring Team observed compliance across CD Paragraphs 171 and 172, which address administration of photographic line-ups. We note the Department does not preserve photos used for single photo identifications. The Department’s position is that single photos are used only when the witness already knows the identity of the subject. Accordingly, the Department argues, single photos do not constitute line-ups as used in the Consent Decree. It is the Monitoring Team’s view that the better practice is for NOPD to preserve single photograph line-ups just as it preserves multiple photo line-ups. Preserving the photograph would allow subsequent verification that the officer showed the witness the correct person, which in the vast majority of cases would refute any challenge to the accuracy of the identification or the veracity of an officer’s account of the photograph he or she showed a witness.

10

The Monitoring Team noted significantly improved compliance with regard to Paragraph 173 during its

most recent audit, the results of which will be reported in the Team’s next quarterly report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 21 of 43 Page 21 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XI. BIAS-FREE POLICING NOPD has adopted policies and conducted training to implement its commitment to bias-free policing, as required by the Consent Decree. Documenting the absence of biased policing is a challenge, but we do see anecdotal signs of improvement: Both NOPD and the Monitoring Team are receiving fewer complaints of biased police conduct; our biennial survey shows improvement in the public’s overall perception of the NOPD; NOPD is making progress toward satisfying the Consent Decree’s language assistance requirements; and, working closely with Breakout and other LGBTQ advocates, NOPD has adopted a LGBTQ policy that should prove to be a model for other departments. We also employ a number of monitoring tools, including audits, surveys, and interviews to assess the extent to which bias-free policing is being practiced on the streets.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 22 of 43
Page 22 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XII. POLICING FREE OF GENDER BIAS
The Monitoring Team has continued to review the Special Victims “SVS” practices and finds the SVS unit continues to perform well. It is staffed with specially-trained detectives and social workers who, as the Monitoring Team’s audits have confirmed, continue to improve their compliance rate in handling DV calls.
Members of our team met with the New Orleans Family Justice Center personnel to discuss any outstanding concerns related to victim outreach. SVU members all attended the SATF Oregon training to complete training for all newly assigned investigators and to update training of all employees. The training was well received and allowed the SVU to come into compliance with all areas of the CD except for those dealing with the patrol response to DV.
As our December 21, 2017 Special Report on Domestic Violence observed, the NOPD SVS detectives typically are not the first to respond to DV calls. In almost all cases, district-based patrol officers are the first officers on the scene. The Monitoring Team audits patrol officer responses to DV calls in the eight police districts on at least a quarterly basis. These audits revealed troubling inconsistencies in the handling of such calls. These findings prompted us to undertake a more targeted review, focusing specifically on the problem areas. We selected a sample of calls for service that included (a) calls designated as “Necessary Action Taken” (a designation typically not appropriate for a DV call), (b) calls designated as “Gone on Arrival” where the officer was on the scene more than 15 minutes, and (c) calls reclassified from a “Code 2” (higher) priority to a “Code 1” (lower) priority.
We found the majority of patrol officers who respond to DV calls for service and initiate a report on the scene are doing a much better job than they did just two years ago, but we also found serious deficiencies as well, outlined in our Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree on Domestic Violence Patrol Response.11 In fact, our review raised questions in 67% of the cases studied. Specifically, we reported that too many officers responded ineffectively and, in some instances, inappropriately. We also found unjustifiably delayed response times, which may be attributable in part to inappropriately reclassified signals. These deficiencies risked compromising victim safety and protection.
The Monitoring Team shared its findings with the NOPD prior to the publication of the Special Report, and the Department took prompt action to develop and initiate a meaningful corrective action plan. In consultation with the Monitoring Team, NOPD

11

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/12-

1924%20DV%20Special%20Report.pdf.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 23 of 43
Page 23 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Changed the way DV cases are coded in its Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system12
• Implemented enhanced training for patrol officers and supervisors,
• Met with supervisors and commanders to increase oversight of officers handling DV calls, and
• Initiated disciplinary proceedings against officers who have acted in violation of NOPD’s DV policy.
In fact, NOPD has initiated disciplinary proceedings against more than 35 officers for violations of NOPD’s DV policy for the handling of incidents that occurred between March and September 2017. While these remedial steps are meaningful, NOPD will have to do even more to resolve the concerns laid out in this report. To this end, NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison met with the Monitoring Team and Judge Morgan on October 17, 2017 and committed the full attention of his leadership team to this matter. Notably, Superintendent Harrison was candid and straightforward regarding what needed fixing and what steps the Department planned to take. His frankness is noteworthy and, in itself, highlights how far the Police Department has come since the entry of the Consent Decree in 2012.
We continue to closely monitor patrol officer and supervisor handling of domestic violence calls and will be working closely with NOPD to develop a plan to ensure these calls are consistently handled appropriately.

12

A CAD system is a computer-based system that permits the centralized dispatch of officers to calls for

service. The NOPD CAD system provides patrol officers and supervisors important information concerning each

call, including, among other things, the nature, priority, and location of the incident. The CAD system also permits

officers to relay important information back to the centralized dispatch unit.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 24 of 43
Page 24 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XIII. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement is an important component of a broader community policing model, although the distinction is often overlooked or misunderstood. According to the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing:
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime”. (March 2015). Within this context, it is a more accountable and transparent means of policing, and is focused on building trust and legitimacy with the community as both police and the community collaborate to solve problems.
Community engagement is a key attribute of community policing. It provides a major path forward to achieving the goal of ensuring that police and community members collaborate through regular meetings that focus on identifying the community problems that need to be solved, and creating ongoing problem solving partnerships. It is built upon maintaining open communication, respectful interactions, and providing feedback as to what works in contrast to what doesn’t. These interventions are central to organizational transformation as reflected in a change in direction that is seen throughout police policies, practices, and training, all of which have a goal of ensuring that the principles of community policing become part of the core values of a police department.13
Superintendent Harrison repeatedly has expressed his commitment to moving the NOPD toward a community policing model. In 2017, the NOPD took a significant step toward realizing the Superintendent’s vision by developing and adopting a Community Engagement Manual to express, describe, and implement its commitment to community policing.14 In developing the Manual, the NOPD sought input from community groups, leaders, and stakeholders through a survey and district meetings. It also met with officials at police departments recognized for their successful commitment to community policing. Additionally, NOPD relied on the expertise of our team’s police chiefs and academics who are nationally recognized community policing experts. Our team provided feedback during the development phase of the plan, attended the district meetings at which NOPD solicited community input, reviewed and provided feedback to the Manual, and after its adoption, met with and interviewed officers responsible for core elements of the plan, such as the School Resource and Community Liaison Officers.

13

Task Force Report available at https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p311-pub.pdf

14

Available at https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-

Decree/Community- Engagement-Manual- (3).pdf/

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 25 of 43
Page 25 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The key elements of the NOPD’s community engagement plan are as follows:
• Community Policing Signals. The NOPD has established police signals for community policing activities. These dedicated signals enable NOPD to better track calls for community policing services as well as the officer responses and community policing activities.15 The new Community Policing Signals are:
o 22A – Area Check. Used by an officer when patrolling an area generally without a specific mission.
o 22B – Business Check. Used when an officer physically exits the patrol car and engages occupants at a business
o 22D – Directed Patrol. Used when an officer is directed to a specific area or is executing a specific mission in an area
o 22R - Residence Check. Used when an officer physically exits the patrol car and engages occupants at a residence.
o 22W – Walking Beat. Used while executing a defined and assigned walking beat.
• District Community Policing Plans. Each NOPD district has developed a districtspecific community policing plan based on the priorities expressed by district residents. Follow-up meetings are held in coordination with NONPAC public meetings, at which the district reports to the residents the progress made toward addressing the concerns raised at the prior meeting and updating the priorities as needed.16
• MAX Meetings: MAX will be used to measure and assess community policing strategies
• Youth Engagement. The Department reports it conducts youth dialogues at schools throughout the city. Additionally, it has formed a Youth Advisory Council, a group of high school students who provide information andideas to the police. The Department has also created a Cadet Program, which is comprised of youth ages 1720 who are interested in pursuing a career in Law Enforcement.

15

In 2017, NOPD recorded over 37,000 total “signal 22’s.”

16

https://public.tableau.com/profile/nola?utm_campaign=City_of_New_Orleans&utm_content=&utm_

medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=#!/vizhome/MAX_0/TableofContents

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 26 of 43
Page 26 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Community Policing and School Resource Officers. NOPD has dedicated officers to interacting with schools and serving as a liaison to the community. We are still assessing the effectiveness of these positions.
The Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to conduct biennial surveys of the community, NOPD, and detainees. These surveys support community policing and engagement by measuring the level of satisfaction with NOPD services reported by these stakeholders. Our 2017 survey17 of Orleans parish residents’, separately reported in July 2017, revealed the following:
• Respondents now have better perceptions of their most recent contact with the NOPD, are more satisfied with the NOPD, have more trust in the NOPD, and are more willing to cooperate with the NOPD.
• Respondents who interacted with NOPD felt they were more likely to be treated with dignity, respect, and politeness.
• Respondents noted improvements in officer honesty, fairness, professionalism, and integrity.
• Respondents felt that improvements in policing had been made in New Orleans, that the NOPD had become a better police department, and that the NOPD was less likely to use excessive force than two years ago.
• Respondents were more likely to believe corruption in the NOPD is low and that past NOPD scandals did not reflect current practices.
Our 2017 survey of New Orleans Police Department officers’ views, reported in July 2017, revealed a greater proportion of officers believe their supervisors are good leaders, are taking the Department in the right direction, and treat fellow officers fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
Although the feedback was very positive for the state and direction of the NOPD, it was not unqualified. For example, in the community survey, more than 40% of respondents were not satisfied with the way NOPD officers are doing their jobs. Almost 60% believe officers do not respond to calls in a timely manner, and 55% of respondents believe the NOPD has little

17

See Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree on the

Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey, July 24, 2017 available at

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/12-

1924%20OCDM%20Second%20Biennial.pdf.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 27 of 43
Page 27 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

impact on crime.18 Although Black respondents’ perceptions of NOPD is improving faster relative to Whites, in absolute terms there remains a significant disparity between the views of Black respondents and the views of White respondents, which indicates opportunity for improvement.19
The disparity between Black and White perceptions may reflect an ongoing strained relationship between the NOPD and the Black community: A majority of respondents felt that the NOPD engaged in racial profiling, felt the Black community expects to be harassed by the NOPD, and that the Black community did not see the NOPD as credible. With respect to the Latino community, the average response to the item, “Members of the New Orleans Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of deportation,” fell in the “agree” category. On the positive side, the average ratings for items asking about the LGBT community’s confidence in the NOPD and the treatment of homeless individuals were neutral. Broadly, respondents felt that body worn cameras reduced the likelihood of improper use of force against minorities.
Although we commend the Department for its commitment to community policing and its progress thus far, we still have questions concerning elements of the plan. For example, the Monitoring Team has reservations about continuing the Community Liaison and School Resource Officer roles inasmuch as they are inconsistent with the community policing concept that every officer engages in community policing. Nevertheless, we also received complaints from community members and organizations when the Community Liaison position was eliminated as part of a redeployment initiative. Additionally, we recognize the value of having officers dedicated to the core components of community policing, especially during the transition process. We will continue to monitor and assess whether newly appointed SLOs and the SRO program are effective, and remain constructive components of the Department’s community policing efforts. As we did this year, the Monitoring Team will observe the next Community Policing Academy.
Overall, we believe NOPD has laid a solid foundation for evolving toward a true community policing model. Transitioning a police department to a community policing model is a long process. While appropriate policies and procedures are essential to community policing, more is required. It is a philosophy and a mindset. There must be a commitment from the top, but that commitment must be infused throughout the organization. We will continue to monitor its progress, provide guidance and feedback, and, of course, publicly report our findings.

18

Id.

19

Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department Consent

Decree on the Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey, available at,

http://nopdconsent.azurewebsites.net/Media/Default/Documents/Reports/12-

1924%20OCDM%20Second%20Biennial.pdf

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 28 of 43
Page 28 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIV. RECRUITMENT
The Monitoring Team continues to monitor and support NOPD’s efforts to improve its recruit candidate evaluation and hiring process (including review of files for Academy classes 180, 181, and 182). While the Monitoring Team shares NOPD’s goal of increasing its ranks, it is critical that NOPD undertake these efforts in a manner that ensures the men and women who seek to join the Department are “diverse [,] highly qualified, and ethical” as required by the Consent Decree. (CD XI).
Most in the law enforcement community are well aware of the price the District of Columbia Police Department paid following its “hiring binge” in the late 1980s and early 1990s. See, e.g., D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge, WASHINGTON POST, (8/28/94). DC is not alone in making that mistake. Accordingly, the Monitoring Team views the integrity of NOPD’s hiring process as an extremely high priority in the context of ensuring constitutional policing throughout the City of New Orleans. To this end, on October 24, 2016, the Monitoring Team initiated a review of the Department’s background investigation process. We also monitored multiple choice/writing test development processes, the professional psychological services selection process, implementation of a new civil service exam, pass/fail rates and discriminatory impact. NOPD management supported the Monitoring Team’s review from the outset, and cooperated fully throughout.
Our in-depth review of candidate background files encompassed findings that included insufficient training of background investigators, incomplete investigations, a review process overly focused on “automatic disqualifiers” at the expense of other facts that collectively signal relevant risks, lack of documentation of steps taken to investigate a candidate, and a myriad of other concerns and deficiencies.
NOPD developed a plan to remedy the shortcomings we found. NOPD committed to “evaluate candidates more holistically and implement additional quality control mechanisms to ensure that any issues that may arise in the hiring process are addressed promptly.” NOPD appointed a new Recruitment Director to guide these changes. NOPD also implemented an enhanced screening process and a Compliance Bureau review process. We will continue to monitor hiring and recruitment activities, observe implementation of the Department’s corrective actions and our recommendations to reengineer NOPD’s recruitment and selection process to comply with the Consent Decree and best practices.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 29 of 43
Page 29 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XV. ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING
At the request of the Court, the Monitoring Team initiated an expanded effort to provide Technical Assistance to the Academy last year. Some key areas of concern included inadequate resources available to the Academy, including outdated technology, limited equipment, and aging physical facilities. These concerns have been mitigated in part by additional resources the City provided the Academy, including a new training facility, enhanced technological equipment and capacity, and improvements in support to personnel and staff dedicated to the training division. The Academy moved into its new educational facility, which is a major improvement over the prior facility and reflects a significant investment in NOPD training.
Other longstanding deficiencies, such as an ongoing failure to implement approved lesson plans, showed a significant turnaround. Last year, the Monitoring Team, the NOPD, and the DOJ partnered with members of the Academy to review and revise curricula, lesson plans, and teaching materials. The Compliance Bureau, Academy leadership, and Monitoring Team implemented a lesson plan tracking system this year. The number of courses operated without approved lesson plans (both recruit and in-service training) greatly diminished this year but was not eliminated entirely. For example, in-service supervision training scheduled for the week of 3/6/17 was postponed until the week of 3/27/17 due to untimely completion of lesson plans.
Approved lessons plans reflect productive partnerships among NOPD instructors, the Monitoring Team, and DOJ. For example, a new 185+ page Integrated Use of Force Lesson Plan was created and approved through iterative collaboration and involvement of relevant experts. We also provided feedback and guidance to the Department and instructors on associated use of force lesson plans.
In addition, a new 8-hour training session on community policing was introduced this year as a requirement for all trainees, including recruits, in-service, and supervisory/command personnel. Beyond integration of core principles, like community policing and procedural justice, Academy courses also reflect more organized and pragmatic training in areas such as “simunition” training that reflect real-life encounters. The Monitoring Team attended in-service training for Insight, SA, DV, and Child Abuse. These observed trainings encompassed effective delivery of course goals.
In early 2017, LA POST (the official police officer standards and training organization for the state of Louisiana) introduced new requirements for Recruit Lesson Plans throughout the state. These requirements mandated the use of LA POST Lesson Plans, in contrast to those developed by the Academy, many of which already had been reviewed by the Monitoring Team. Consequently, the Academy faced immediate demands to review all Recruit Lesson Plans; to determine the revisions necessary to meet POST requirements; and to determine how to make those revisions while ensuring that NOPD/Consent Decree requirements were maintained in
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 30 of 43
Page 30 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
these new Lesson Plans. The new requirements further mandated that all instructors be certified through the LA POST certification, in contrast to the FBI Certification that is required by the Consent Decree. Management staff introduced the new LA POST requirements to Academy and Adjunct Instructors and achieved mandated adjustments.
Professional development activities should continue to foster ongoing improvement in instructors’ classroom leadership to address shortcomings observed by the Monitoring team, including more student engagement by instructors, less reading of prepared course materials, and more deliberate use of adult learning techniques in the classroom.20
Currently, the NOPD Academy lacks its own shooting range, which forces officers to drive a long distance to another agency’s range. The absence of a range also creates a perception among instructors and students that the Academy is not a high priority of the Department. Funds have been set aside, however, for a feasibility study to build a new shooting range.
The Academy made progress in creating a more professional learning environment, in which greater transparency and accountability are emphasized by requiring performance evaluations of course instructors, professional development curricula for Academy staff and adjunct instructors, and an improved Recruit Manual and Academic Review Board. Another key gain includes the revitalization of the Training Advisory Committee (TAC), now meeting on a regular basis, and which contributes to the Academy’s annual needs assessment.
At a November Public Hearing held by the Court, the Monitoring Team reported that the NOPD is making significant progress toward reforming the Academy and that the progress toward substantial compliance was a notable success in 2017. The hearing afforded NOPD the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to reforming the Education and Training Division so that it produces officers committed to and trained in protecting the public through effective and constitutional policing who will represent the City of New Orleans to its residents and the millions of visitors who come to New Orleans each year in a professional manner.
Toward the end of 2017, at the request of the Court, the Monitoring Team engaged an additional resource to help the NOPD Academy more quickly achieve full compliance with the Consent Decree. Specifically, the Monitoring Team engaged Deputy Chief Bill Murphy, the former director of the LA Police Department Academy, to provide technical assistance to and monitoring over the NOPD Academy. Chief Murphy previously helped move the LAPD forward

20

We also note, the NOPD Academy lacks its own shooting range, which forces officers to drive a long

distance to use other agencies’ ranges. The absence of a range also creates a perception among instructors and

students that the Academy is not a high priority of the Department. Funds have been set aside, however, for a

feasibility study to build a new shooting range.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 31 of 43 Page 31 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com following the entry of its Consent Decree and we have high confidence he will provide the same practical and effective guidance here.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 32 of 43
Page 32 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVI. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
NOPD is in compliance with the Consent Decree’s Officer Assistance and Support requirements. The policy, lesson plans, and OAP protocols were approved this year by the Monitoring Team, DOJ, and NOPD. The Monitoring Team observed classes on OAP given to Command level staff in the Fall of 2017. The classes were well received and generated positive feedback. The Department continues weekly training and officer awareness outreach related to the program at the Academy. The number of those accessing the OAP continues to grow each month. OAP staff also presented at the September Status Conference with Judge Morgan and NOPD staff.
In 2016, the NOPD took another big step along the path of innovation with the creation of its EPIC peer intervention program. EPIC (for “Ethical Policing Is Courageous”) is a program created by NOPD’s own officers with the help of experts that builds upon years of social science research into “active bystandership.” In a collaboration among the Department's Field Operations Bureau, Management Services Bureau, PIB, and Compliance Bureau, EPIC seeks to train and empower each of the Department’s more than 1,100 officers and supervisors and leadership personnel to effectively and safely intervene in other officers’ conduct before a mistake is made or misconduct occurs. Through classroom training (which includes lecture and discussion along with scenario-based role play), and department-wide reinforcement, EPIC trains officers to notice when an intervention may be necessary, gives them the tools to take action effectively and safely, empowers them to act regardless of the rank of the person requiring the intervention, and protects them when they do intervene. (NOPD’s recentlyadopted discipline policy identifies a successful intervention as a formal mitigating factor that must be considered in any disciplinary proceeding.)
In 2017, nearly all officers completed EPIC training. EPIC teaches officers of all ranks that a good-faith intervention is not something to spurn, but something to embrace as a sign of caring, respect, and teamwork. The premise of training officers to prevent serious mistakes or misconduct before they occur is an elegant solution to a long-existing problem. The NOPD EPIC program is still in its infancy, but it shows great promise. The principles of peer intervention are being taught as a stand-alone academy course—for new recruits as well as veteran officers—and are being incorporated into all other Academy courses.
Consequently, in addition to learning about active bystandership in the EPIC training module, officers also explore those principles in their use-of-force course, their handcuffing course, their driving course, and so forth. In addition, the Department has designed the training component of the EPIC program on a “continuous improvement” basis. The ideas, tactics, and strategies developed by the officers during their role-play scenarios are incorporated into the EPIC training and shared with each subsequent class of officers. In this way, NOPD’s officers truly are the developers of the course’s content.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 33 of 43 Page 33 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
The NOPD continues to make progress in reinforcing EPIC principles throughout the Department. Active bystandership and peer intervention will be emphasized in roll call training, periodic electronic training bulletins, and video reminders from leadership. NOPD believes its efforts to promote EPIC not only will help protect civilians, but also will help save officers’ lives.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 34 of 43 Page 34 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS The Monitoring Team conducted an audit and review of the Performance Evaluations and Promotions section of the Consent Decree in the Spring 2017. We found supervisory reports to be deficient. We determined that the existing performance evaluations contain little information and that new NOPD forms with prompts for the supervisors are inadequate to obtain the information necessary to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. Our findings revealed the need for additional prompts and updated training. For example, community policing performance measurements are not incorporated within the current performance evaluation forms. NOPD has responded to these findings. A revised process for conducting performance evaluations is on track and awaiting Civil Service approval in 2018. We anticipate implementation will occur in 2018. The feedback on the new performance evaluation tool has been positive. Supervisors will need additional training and better oversight by Command staff before their evaluations will be acceptable. All elements of the Consent Decree are included in the new performance evaluations, training has been conducted, and supervisors will be re-trained in the new process just prior to the evaluation timeframes. The Department expects to practice with the new evaluation once more before it is used for merit based pay evaluations.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 35 of 43
Page 35 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XVIII. SUPERVISION
NOPD made significant progress during 2017 in meeting its obligations under the Supervisions paragraphs of the Consent Decree. NOPD has made progress in civilianizing some positions, and is working to ensure officers are able to focus on the most critical issues at hand. Nearly all duty locations audited this year, however, still revealed Supervision paragraphs that show mixed results concerning scheduling. The Monitoring Team continues to note a disconnect between the number of sergeants at NOPD and the prevalence of sergeants in the field. The Consent Decree Monitoring Team has reviewed data to determine whether there are adequate sergeants distributed and on-duty at each district.
NOPD’S implementation of the Consent Decree-required early intervention system (EWS) called Insight has been impressive, notwithstanding some points in the road to promoting effective use of the system. Insight tracks numerous officer performance data to provide supervisors information to help them manage and supervise their subordinates and to help them spot trends that suggest an officer may need assistance. Insight Unit personnel provide regular individual training and group training at the district level. In addition, they provided all supervisors with training at the Training Academy during October and November 2017. Insight is so new and different from previous supervisory tools used by the NOPD that the Department has struggled to develop adequate supervisory training. Supervisors received two hours of training in 2016 and were listed for 2 hours of training in 2017, although only one of those hours actually was dedicated to Insight. (The other hour was dedicated to employee assistance.) Districts and duty locations were monitored to determine supervisors’ ability to use the Insight system. We found not all supervisors had received notice that they were to use Insight by the time of our review. For those who had received notice, we found that some supervisors were able to use Insight effectively but most were not able to locate all of the information they should be using. This is not surprising for a new system. Subsequent reviews have demonstrated improvement, however.
Additionally, we found all supervisors are not able to view all personnel under their command in Insight. Each sergeant in each district generally is able to view only a portion of the officers assigned to the shift the sergeant supervises. (The Monitoring Team's more recent Insight audits have noted improvements in this area, which will be reflected in the Team's next quarterly report.) The ADP payroll system currently feeds into Insight. Insight permits a supervisor access only to those officers assigned through ADP. Other sergeants on the shift can view the other officers assigned to that shift. This means there are many cases where supervisors may not able to view the performance of all subordinates. Finally, the annual performance evaluations to provide evidence of compliance with this portion of the paragraph are yet to be conducted.21

21

The Monitoring Team reviewed these evaluations in 2018, which is outside of the time period covered by

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 36 of 43
Page 36 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
We will continue to monitor use of Insight and work with NOPD to ensure supervisors are able to obtain all the benefits the system offers.
In addition to auditing supervision, the Monitoring Team reviewed video/audio recording in the fourth quarter. We found partial compliance with the Consent Decree requirement for maintenance and operation of video cameras and AVL (a GPS system for police cars) in all marked or unmarked vehicles assigned to routine calls for service, task forces, tactical units, prisoner transport, or SOD canine.22 Some cars, however, did not have operable cameras at the time of the audit. Additionally, NOPD has been unable to provide evidence that supervisors incorporate the knowledge gained from the review of CEW, BWC and in-car camera recordings into their ongoing evaluation and supervision of officers. Performance evaluations did not include this requirement. New performance evaluations include this information for 2018. NOPD has developed and implemented approved policies and procedures detailing in-car camera and Body Worn Camera (BWC) operation, supervisory review, and reporting this year.

this report. Our assessment of those evaluations will be addressed in our report for the first quarter of 2018.

22

The Monitoring Team found significant improvement in its Q1 2018 audit, which will be reported in the

Team's next quarterly report.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 37 of 43 Page 37 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XIX. SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM The Office of Police Secondary Employment (OPSE) has continued to make steady progress toward full compliance with the Consent Decree. OPSE is now managing all secondary employment by NOPD members. The Monitoring Team commends OPSE Director, Lt. Col. John Salomone, for his steadfast commitment to establishing and leading OPSE and for his dedication to working closely with us to ensure that OPSE met the requirements of the Consent Decree. As our early reports observed, the establishment of OPSE was one of the most intensely controversial and opposed aspects of the Consent Decree. As a sign of its progress, however, currently OPSE officers work more secondary employment hours than prior to the Consent Decree. Since September 2014, when OPSE began managing all secondary employment, there have been consistent year over year increases in officer participation, hours worked, customers served and gross revenues.
In 2016/2017, NOPD’s Compliance unit audited OPSE’s operations with the exception of special events, which, at the time of the audit were being managed by the NOPD’s Special Events office. We reviewed and approved the methodology and findings, which were consistent with our own. The audit was released publicly in June. In July, OPSE issued an updated Policy Manual, which we reviewed and approved.
Col. Salomone’s disciplined focus and exemplary project management skills allowed him to chart a course that enabled the City to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree and to navigate through the opposition. He has helped to establish a smoothly running office that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree as well as the needs of NOPD members and OPSE’s customers. Some remaining paragraphs for which the City is still non-compliant are ones that have been rendered unnecessary or unfeasible because they were based on assumptions that no longer match OPSE’s current, approved operations. The parties, with the Monitor’s approval, have filed a motion with the court to eliminate or modify these provisions. Thus, as a practical matter OPSE is compliant. Accordingly, in 2018 our focus will be on monitoring OPSE’s operations for sustained compliance.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 38 of 43 Page 38 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XX. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION The Monitoring Team continues to support the Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) in achieving substantial compliance and effectiveness in its oversight of NOPD conduct. This year, the Monitoring Team conducted a review of PIB administrative investigations. The two main deficiencies found were credibility assessments and completing investigations within the 90 or 120-day timelines. The Monitoring Team also conducted a Special Operation Division (SOD) “Culture Assessment,” by reviewing use of force and resisting arrest reports, injury reports, BWC videos, civilian and rank– generated complaints, and suspect interrogation.
The previously discussed Force Investigation Team Manual provided PIB investigators a additional tool to guide them in conducting interviews. Our team reviewed that manual and provided feedback and suggestions to PIB.
We also collaborated with NOPD in developing a case investigation management checkoff list and Administrative Shooting Template for the Force Investigation Team, which will ensure essential elements of serious use of force investigations are completed in a timely manner.
Monitoring Team members attended Public Integrity Bureau In-Service Training at the Academy regarding the intake portion of complaint investigations. We found the presentation was conducted well and the supervisors and instructors had very good questions and inquiries about the process. The presentation was well done, and elicited healthy discussion among the students and instructors.
Continued attention to training and personnel development are important as our audits of FIT cases have revealed areas for additional learning, such as the need for a refresher course in interview and interrogation. We noticed instances where the investigator used leading questions when interviewing an involved officer. The Monitoring Team presented technical assistance training to district lieutenants and sergeants regarding use of force investigations and areas of enhancement consistent with the last two Monitoring Team audits. The two meetings went very well and there was open discussion and pertinent questions regarding the role of supervisors in use of force investigations.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 39 of 43 Page 39 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XXI. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT We have found that NOPD is in compliance with the Consent Decree’s Transparency and Oversight requirements.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 40 of 43 Page 40 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
XXII. FUTURE MONITORING ACTIVITIES While NOPD has made steady and impressive compliance progress, our findings reveal that, for the New Orleans community to realize the improvements contemplated by the Consent Decree, NOPD must focus on daily performance of its officers and supervisors. Improvement will come from better training of officers on the new policies and procedures NOPD has adopted, especially through roll call training; closer supervision by platoon sergeants and lieutenants, who are best positioned to provide prompt counseling; and, where necessary, disciplinary action. We will be working closely with NOPD to develop a plan to ensure supervisors provide the close and effective supervision required by the Consent Decree. Closely related to supervisors’ ability to devote the time necessary to provide close and effective supervision, we have been working with a group of NOPD members to identify unnecessary inefficiencies. This burden reduction group has made a number of recommendations, some of which have been implemented. We also will be expanding our audits of NOPD’s Stops, Searches, and Arrest (SSA) practices. The Monitoring Team worked closely with the Department of Justice to perform an extensive SSA audit in late 2017. That audit identified the need for additional audits and reviews in targeted areas. The results of the preliminary audit and the subsequent targeted reviews will be made public in the coming months. Finally, in additional to the ongoing audits, evaluations, and outcome assessments necessary to ensure NOPD demonstrates compliance with every paragraph of the Consent Decree, the Monitoring Team will continue to observe Academy training, roll call training, and officers on the streets to ensure Consent Decree providing the reforms are intended benefits to the community. We also will continue providing Technical Assistance to help the NOPD take its impressive achievements to date to the next level.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 41 of 43
Page 41 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

XXIII. Policy Approvals
Approved Policies Include: 1.1 Law Enforcement Authority 1.12 Diplomatic and Consular Contacts /
Arrest or Detention of Foreign Nationals 1.14 Arrest of a Postal Employee 1.17 Arrest of a Special Officer, Reserve
Officer, or Honorary Officer 1.18 Arrest of a Law Enforcement Officer
from Another Jurisdiction 1.2.10 Public Recording of Police Officers 1.2.4 Search and Seizure (Custody Searches
rolled into this policy) 1.2.4.1 Terry Stops 1.2.4.2 Search Warrant Content, Forms and
Reviews 1.22 Arrest of a City of New Orleans
Employee 1.2.6 Alternatives to Arrest – Diversion 1.3 Use of Force 1.3.1.1 Handcuffing and Restraints Devices 1.3.1.2 Control Devices and Techniques 1.3.2 Force Investigative Team/Officer
Involved Shooting 1.3.6 Reporting Use of Force 1.3.7 Use of Force Review Boards 1.4 Authorized Firearms 1.4.1 Authorized Ammunition 1.4.2 Firearms Training Qualification and
Requalification 1.4.3 Scenario Based Firearms Training 1.7.1 Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) 1.9.1 Miranda Rights 11.0.1 Duties and Responsibilities of District
Commanders, Supervisory Personnel and Patrol Officers 11.4.1 Audits and Reviews 13.29 Self Identification/Building Security 13.35 Commendations and Awards 16.5 Volunteers

22.2.6 Officer Assistance Program Member Mental Health Services
22.2.7 Officer Assistance Program Traumatic Incident Stress Management
22.2.8 Officer Assistance Program: New Orleans Police Peer Assistance (NOPPA)
24.2 Mediation Settlement 25.1 Grievances: Employee
Nondiscriminatory Complaints 26.2 Adjudication of Misconduct 26.2.1 Disciplinary Matrix 26.3 Workplace Discriminatory
Harassment/Retaliation 33.1 Training and Career Development 33.1.1 Training Advisory Committee 33.2 Training Types and Availability 34.2 Promotions and Promotion Committee 35.1.10 Early Intervention Unit 35.1.7 Employee Counseling 35.1.7 Non-Disciplinary Responses to Minor
Violations 35.1.9 Insight 41.13 Bias Free Policing 41.13.1 Interactions with LGBTQ Persons 41.22 Canines 41.25 Crisis Intervention 41.26 Crisis Transportation Service 41.3.10 Body-Worn Camera 41.3.2 Body-Worn Camera Inadvertent
Misuse and Non-Use 41.3.8 In-Car Camera 41.3.9 License Plate Recognition System 41.36 Interacting with Homeless Persons 41.4 Foot Pursuits 41.4.1 Officer Response to Calls 41.4.2 Alternative Police Response (APR) 41.5 Vehicle Pursuits 41.6.1 Immigration Status 41.8 Affidavits and Summons

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 42 of 43
Page 42 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

42.11 Custodial Interrogations 42.12 Hate Crimes 42.15 District Attorney Case Screening 42.19 Child Abuse 42.2 Sexual Assault 42.4 Domestic Violence 42.8.1 Eyewitness Identification -
Photographic Line-Up 44.1 Child and Dependent Adult Safety 46.7 Crisis Response Unit – SWAT 52.1.1 Complaint Investigation 52.2 Negotiated Settlement Agreements 55.1 Victim and Witness Assistance 55.4 Limited English Proficiency Services
(LEP) 55.5 Disabilities Services 55.5.1 Communication with persons who
are deaf or hearing impaired 61.3 Traffic Citations 61.4.5 Abandoned Boats 71.1 Prisoner Transportation 82.4 Complaint Signals Changing of Item
Signals or Dispositions
2017 Approvals (Revised): 1.11 Warrant Inquiries 1.15 Felony Wanted Vehicle Entry in NCIC 1.24 In Custody Deaths 1.25 Concealed Handgun Permit 1.8 Weapons Evaluation Committee 11 Organizational Command Responsibility 12.1 Department Operations Manual 12.2 Departmental Orders 13.14 Vehicle Fueling and Fuel Services 13.19 Excusal on the Night Watch 13.2 Department Forms: Development and
Implementation 13.22 Crash Review Board 13.25 Lost or Misplaced Driver's License 13.27.1 Job Performance Improvement Plan 13.3 Personnel Files

13.37 Payroll Records 13.38 Nepotism and Employment Conflicts 13.5 Unit Goals and Objectives 13.8 Administrative Communications 15.1 Crime Analysis 16.3 Reserves 17.01 Fiscal Management 17.2.2 Take Home Vehicles 17.3 Department Owned and Personal
Property 17.4 Damage and Repair to Private Property 2.1 Mutual Aid and Outside Agency
Assistance 2.2 Reporting Law Enforcement Activity
Outside of the Jurisdiction 22.2 Limited-Duty Assignments 22.6 Exit Interviews 22.9 Outside Employment 31.1 Recruitment 32.1 Personnel Hiring Selection 33.4 Driver Training Program 41.1 District Patrol Function 41.1.1 Unusual Occurrences 41.1.2 Uniformed Patrol: Platoon Structure,
Assignments, AWP Days 41.10 Uniform Regulations 41.11 Body Armor 41.2 Roll Call 41.21 Mounted Patrol 41.23 Missing Person Reporting 41.23.1 Public Alerts 41.3.11 Department Technology Use 41.3.3 Seat Belt Use 41.3.4 Personal Communication Devices 41.31 Damage to Public Property 41.33 Death Investigation 41.34 Animal Control 41.37 Notifications 41.39 Identity Theft 41.4.3 Property Loss Report 42.1 Interviews

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 550-1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 43 of 43
Page 43 of 43 April 10, 2018 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

42.16 Preliminary Forensic Drug Testing 42.18 Adult Abuse 42.2.10 Auto Theft Investigations 42.3 Task Forces 42.5 Computer Voice Stress Analyzer
(CVSA), Polygraph Testing and Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) 42.8 Eyewitness Identification 43.1 Asset Forfeiture 43.3 Use of Surveillance and Undercover Equipment 43.7 Vice, Narcotics and Organized Crime Investigations 43.8 Registered Offender Information 45.2 Emergency Utility Notifications 46.1 Hostage and Barricade Incidents (approved) 46.16 Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 46.2 Emergency Operations Plan 46.3 Response to Bomb Calls 46.3.4 Hazardous Material Response 46.5 Security of Visiting Dignitaries 46.9 Marine Search and Rescue Unit 52.8 Suspensions and Emergency Suspensions of Members 55.5 Service Animals 61.09 Traffic Direction and Control 61.1.9 Speed Measuring Devices 61.11 School Crossing Guards 61.13 Disabled Vehicles 61.13.1 Abandoned and Nuisance Vehicles 61.2 Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security 61.2 Parking Citations / Voiding 61.21 Vehicle Towing and Release 61.7 Traffic Crash Response and Reporting 74.3.1 Failure to Appear 81.1 Communication Operations 81.13 Major Incident Notification 81.3 Police Radios 81.4 Mobile Digital Computer and

Automatic Vehicle Locator Use 81.7 Police Complaint Signals and
Dispositions 81.8 M.O.T.I.O.N. Computer Inquiries 82.1.1 Records Release and Security 82.2.6 Department Electronic Mail 82.3.6 Criminal History Record Information
(CHRI) 82.8 Bulletins 83.1 Collection and Preservation of
Evidence 83.2 Computers and Digital Evidence 84.1 Evidence and Property 84.2 Evidence and Property Disposal
(CE&P)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 60
Path To Reform
Report to Judge Morgan On NOPD Progress Under The Consent Decree
January 2019 Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
1

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 60

Full & Effective Compliance

• 486. To ensure that the requirements of this Agreement are properly and timely implemented, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the City has achieved full and effective compliance with this Agreement and maintained such compliance for no less than two years. At all times, the City and NOPD shall bear the burden of demonstrating full and effective compliance with this Agreement. . . .

2

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 60

Path To Full & Sustained Compliance

NOPD implements reforms required by Consent Decree
OCDM conducts section-by-section assessments and identifies areas in Full & Effective Compliance
Once the Court finds all sections in Full & Effective Compliance, NOPD enters into a “Sustainment Period”
NOPD must maintain Full and Effective compliance with ALL sections of the Consent Decree for two years

3

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 60
Paragraph 456: Comprehensive Assessment
• “Two years after the effective date, the Monitor shall conduct a comprehensive assessment to determine whether and to what extent the outcomes intended by this Agreement have been achieved, and any modifications to the Agreement that are necessary for continued achievement in light of changed circumstances or unanticipated impact (or lack of impact) of the requirement. This assessment also shall address areas of greatest achievement and the requirements that appear to have contributed to this success, as well as areas of greatest concern, including strategies for accelerating full and effective compliance. . . .”
4

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 5 of 60
Executive Summary
• NOPD continues to make significant progress in every area of the Consent Decree
• Multiple areas have achieved Full & Effective Compliance
• NOPD leadership deserves significant credit for bringing the Department this far • Their continued commitment will be critical to getting the Department to the finish line
• Some CD areas still require additional work • Some of these areas are significant • But progress continues to be made even in these areas
5

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 6 of 60

Agenda

• Introduction • Consent Decree Overview • Abbreviated Compliance Timeline • Current Status Overview • Summary Of Sections In Or Nearing Full And
Effective Compliance • Summary Of Sections Requiring Additional
Attention • Factors Contributing To Success • Path Forward • Conclusion

6

NOPD Consent Decree

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 7 of 60

Transparency

Policies & Training

Use of Force

Misconduct

CIT

OPSE Supervision Performance
Evals

Consent Decree

SSA Custodial
Interrogations Photo Lineups

OA&S

Bias Free Policing

Academy

Recruitment

Community Engagement

Policing Free of Gender Bias

7

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 8 of 60
Abbreviated Compliance Timeline

1/2013 Court Approves
CD

5/2013 Court Denies Motion To Vacate

9/2013 5th Circuit
Affirms Denial of Motion to Vacate

8/2014 Chief Harrison Appointed

2016 NOPD Structural Changes

2018 Ongoing Significant Progress

5/2013 City Moves To Vacate

8/2013 OCDM Appointed

2014 OCDM Provides Technical Assistance

2015 NOPD Leadership
& Structural Changes

2017 Ongoing Significant Progress

8

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 9 of 60
Path To Reform

No Meaningful
Progress
NOPD has made little if any progress in achieving the goals outlined in the Consent Decree.

Inadequate Progress
NOPD had made some, but inadequate, progress in achieving the goals outlined in the Consent Decree.

Significant Progress
NOPD has taken and continues to take necessary and appropriate steps toward achieving full and effective compliance, but has more work to do. A finding of “significant progress” is NOT a negative finding.

Nearing Full & Effective Compliance
NOPD either (a) is nearing “Full & Effective Compliance” or (b) may have achieved such compliance, but DOJ and the OCDM have not yet verified.

Full & Effective Compliance
NOPD has (a) incorporated the requirement into policy; (b) trained all relevant personnel to fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to the requirement; (c) ensured that the requirement is being carried out in practice; and (d) disciplined noncompliance.

9

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 10 of 60
Path To Reform -- 2011

No Meaningful
Progress
• Misconduct Investigations • Use of Force • Secondary Employment • Custodial Interrogation • Photographic line-Ups • Officer Assistance & Support • Transparency & Oversight • Approved Policies • Policing Free of Gender Bias – Sexual
Assault • Policing Free of Gender Bias – Domestic
Violence • Academy • Crisis Intervention Team • Bias Free Policing • Stops, Searches, Arrests • Performance Evals & Promotions • Recruitment • Supervision • Community Engagement

Inadequate Progress

Significant Progress

Nearing Full & Effective Compliance

Full & Effective Compliance

10

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 11 of 60
Path To Reform -- 2019

No Meaningful
Progress
N/A

Inadequate Progress
N/A

Significant Progress
• Supervision • Performance Evals &
Promotions • Recruitment • Community Engagement • Stops, Searches, Arrests

Nearing Full & Effective Compliance
• Academy • Misconduct Investigations • Bias Free Policing

Full &
Effective
Compliance
• Use of Force • Secondary Employment • Custodial Interrogation • Photographic line-Ups • Officer Assistance &
Support • Transparency & Oversight • Approved Policies • Sexual Assault
Investigations • Domestic Violence
Investigations • Crisis Intervention Team

11

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 12 of 60
Section By Section Highlights
12

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 13 of 60
Use Of Force
• “NOPD agrees to develop and implement force policies, training, and review mechanisms that ensure that force by NOPD officers is used in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that any unreasonable uses of force are identified and responded to appropriately. NOPD agrees to ensure that officers use non-force techniques to affect compliance with police orders whenever feasible; use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; and de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
13

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 14 of 60

Use of Force

NOPD Reform Highlights
• New policies / training • Effective Use of Force Review Board
(UFRB) • Effective Force Investigation Team (FIT)

OCDM Findings
• Increase in appropriate usage of Bodyworn cameras during use of force incidents
• All use of force incidents reviewed by FIT • Use of force violations handled
appropriately

Illustrative Data
• No 2017/2018 canine bites or off-lead deployments
• No unjustified 2017/2018 shootings of individuals
• UOF complaints significantly down

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Continue robust UFRB • Routine policy review/updates • Continued coordination with Independent
Police Monitor (IPM)

14

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 15 of 60
NOPD Officer-Involved Shootings

Year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Persons
9 9 8 8 3 3 0

Animals
9 3 2 3 2 0 1

Accidental
2 1 1 1 2 2 3

Total
20 13 11 12 7 5 4
15

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 16 of 60

Percentage of NOPD’s Use of Force administrative investigations in which each NOPD finding is supported by the evidence

100%

100%

100%

100%

2015

2016

2017

2018

16

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 17 of 60

Use of Force Review Board
Highlights

• Board reviews all serious uses of force and other FIT investigations
• Serves as quality control mechanism to determine the appropriateness of the investigative findings and to evaluate incident from a tactical, training, policy, and agencyimprovement perspective
• The UFRB process is in addition to any other review or investigation
• The Monitoring Team has observed most UFRB proceedings and has been impressed by the Board’s candor, thoroughness, and effectiveness
• The Monitoring Team continues to audit to ensure NOPD followthrough on UFRB recommendations

17

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 18 of 60

Canine Bite Metrics

Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Deployments 105 124 111 129 77 60 56

Bites 6 7 12 10 4 0 0

18

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 19 of 60

Vehicle Pursuit Statistics

80 70
64
60 50 40 30 20 10
0 2014

NOPD Vehicle Pursuits
73

31 21

2015

2016

2017

32
2018
19

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 20 of 60
Property Damage Resulting from Vehicle Pursuits

Light Moderate Heavy Total

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

11

5

1

2

0

2

5

4

1

1

1

2

1

0

1

14

12

6

3

2

20

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 21 of 60
Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)
• “NOPD agrees to minimize the necessity for the use of force against individuals in crisis due to mental illness or a diagnosed behavioral disorder. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
21

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 22 of 60

Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Implemented Memphis CIT model • Established effective CIT Committee • Implemented effective training

OCDM Findings
• CIT training is effective • Officers are proud to wear CIT pin • CIT officers are effective on scene

Illustrative Data
• Patrol officers trained: 256 • CIT certified officers: 37% • Most recent OCDM audit: 100%

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Continue conducting internal audits • Continue to update training with
new best practices • Strive to exceed 40% CIT trained

22

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 23 of 60
Illustrative CIT Statistics
23

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 24 of 60
Custodial Interrogations
• “NOPD agrees to ensure that officers conduct custodial interrogations in accordance with the subjects’ rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the rights to counsel and against selfincrimination. NOPD agrees to ensure that custodial interrogations are conducted professionally and effectively, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
24

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 25 of 60

Custodial Interrogations

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Designated room with functioning audio/video
• Enhanced training • Compliant facilities

OCDM Findings
• Compliant policies • Compliant training • Compliant practices

Illustrative Data
• Complaints since 2015: 2 • OCDM audit results: 100% • Interrogations recorded &
logged: ALL

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Maintain recording equipment • Maintain log • Conduct internal inspections

25

Key: C = Compliant
P = Partial Compliance
N = Not Compliant

2014 NOPD Compliance Score for Custodial Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 26 of 60

Interrogations Paragraphs

Districts 163 164 165

166

167

168

District 1 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 2 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 3 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 4 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 5 P

P

N

N

N

N

District 6 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 7 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 8 P

P

P

N

P

N

Homicide C

C

C

N

C

N

SVS

N

N

N

N

N

N

SOD

*

*

*

*

*

N

26

Key: C = Compliant
P = Partial Compliance
N = Not Compliant

2017/2018 NOPD Compliance Score for Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 27 of 60

Custodial Interrogations Paragraphs

Districts 163 164 165

166

167

168

District 1 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 2 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 3 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 4 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 5 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 6 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 7 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 8 C

C

C

C

C

C

Homicide C

C

C

C

C

C

SVS

C

C

C

C

C

C

SOD

C

C

C

C

C

C

27

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 28 of 60
Photographic Line-Ups
• “NOPD agrees to ensure that photographic line-ups are conducted effectively and in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to elicit accurate and reliable information. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
28

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 29 of 60

Photographic Lineups

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Double-blind lineups • New process for filler photos • Witness statements recorded

OCDM Findings
• Compliant policies • Compliant training • Compliant practices

Illustrative Data
• Tracking logs: 100% • Lineups recorded: 100% • Records maintained: 100%

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Explore new documentation technologies
• Maintain all recording equipment • Conduct regular internal inspections

29

Key: C = Compliant
P = Partial Compliance
N = Not Compliant

2014 NOPD Compliance Score for Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 30 of 60

Photographic Line-Ups Paragraphs

Districts 171 172 173

174

175

176

District 1 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 2 N

P

N

N

N

N

District 3 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 4 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 5 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 6 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 7 N

N

N

N

N

N

District 8 P

C

C

N

P

N

Homicide C

C

P

C

N

N

SVS

N

C

C

P

P

C

SOD

*

*

*

*

*

*

30

Key: C = Compliant
P = Partial Compliance
N = Not Compliant

2017/2018 NOPD Compliance Score for Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 31 of 60 Photographic Line-Ups Paragraphs

Districts 171 172 173

174

175

176

District 1 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 2 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 3 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 4 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 5 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 6 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 7 C

C

C

C

C

C

District 8 C

C

C

C

C

C

Homicide C

C

C

C

C

C

SVS

C

C

C

C

C

C

SOD

C

C

C

C

C

C

31

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 32 of 60
Policing Free of Gender Bias
• “NOPD agrees to respond to and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence professionally, effectively, and in a manner free of gender-based bias, in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. NOPD agrees to appropriately classify and investigate reports of sexual assault and domestic violence, collaborate closely with the DA and community partners, including the NOFJC, and apply a victim-centered approach at every stage of its response. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
32

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 33 of 60

Sexual Assault Response and Investigations

NOPD Reform Highlights
• SVS housed in NOFJC • Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) –
successful multidisciplinary taskforce • Dedicated NOPD leadership having a
positive impact

OCDM Findings
• Policies implement best practices • Training is effective • Remarkable post-2014 turnaround • Case files in excellent order • Few complaints

Illustrative Data
• SVS Practices Audits: Near 100% • Case File Audits: Near 100% • NOFJC Case worker Feedback: Extremely
Positive • Increased reporting indicates public trust,
proper reporting, and more accurate clearances by officers

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Regular internal audits • Continued engagement with stakeholders • Maintain sufficient number of
investigators

33

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 34 of 60
Sexual Assault Reporting
34

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 35 of 60

Domestic Violence Response and Investigations

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Effective supervision • Qualified / committed staff • DV detectives co-located with NOFJC • Work closely with D.A. office prosecutor
Illustrative Data
• OCDM Detective Audits: 100% • OCDM Patrol Audits: 95%-100% • Reported DV calls up to expected levels –
indicates trust, proper reporting, and clearances by officers

OCDM Findings
• Policies incorporate national best practices
• Patrol response dramatically improved • Training is effective • Signal change and response times audits
positive • Dual arrest figures substantially lower
Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Continue updating policies • Continue updating training • Conduct regular internal audits

35

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 36 of 60
Domestic Violence Reporting
36

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 37 of 60
Domestic Violence Code 1 Response Times
37

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 38 of 60
Officer Assistance and Support
• “NOPD agrees to provide officers and employees ready access to the mental health and support resources necessary to facilitate effective and constitutional policing. To achieve this outcome, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements below.”
38

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 39 of 60

Officer Assistance & Support

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Established Officer Assistance Program (OAP)
• Office staffed with licensed professionals
• Regular Academy training
Illustrative Data
• Rewrote Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
• OAP resources easily located on NOPD website
• OAP practices based on national best practice standards

OCDM Findings
• User feedback highly positive • Training effective • Services need further expansion
Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Maintain positive relations with officers and their families
• Identify additional resources needed • Analyze data to determine
sufficiency of personnel

39

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 40 of 60
Illustrative OAP Survey Results
40

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 41 of 60
Secondary Employment System
• “The City shall completely restructure what is currently known as its Paid Detail system to ensure that officers’ and other NOPD employees’ off-duty secondary employment does not compromise or interfere with the integrity and effectiveness of NOPD employees’ primary work as sworn police officers serving the entire New Orleans community. To achieve this outcome, the City shall develop and implement an off-duty secondary employment system that comports with applicable law and current professional standards, and which shall include the requirements set out below.”
41

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 42 of 60

Secondary Employment System

NOPD Reform Highlights
• New policies / training • Effective Office of Police Secondary
Employment (OPSE) • Successful transition to new leader, Fabian
Barbarin

OCDM Findings
• 100% compliant in almost all Secondary Employment CD paragraphs
• Accurate & complete data • Violations handled appropriately • Secondary employment system comports with
applicable law and current professional standards

Illustrative Data
• Yearly increases in officer participation, hours worked, customers served, and gross revenues
• OPSE now manages all secondary employment by NOPD officers

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Continue robust OPSE • Routine policy review/updates • Maintain clear communication with NOPD
officers

42

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 43 of 60
OPSE Has Expanded Opportunities For Officers
43

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 44 of 60
Secondary Employment Violations

2014 11

2015 1

2016 3

2017 1

2018 0

44

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 45 of 60
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
• “NOPD and the City agree to ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct are received and are fully and fairly investigated; that all investigative findings are supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair and consistent. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD and the City agree to implement the requirements set out below.”
45

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 46 of 60

Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Misconduct routinely reported and discipline process is transparent
• Administrative Investigation timeframes comport with requirements
• Evidence is properly identified, collected, analyzed, and securely stored
• Investigative reports and documentation is securely stored

OCDM Findings
• Auditable data are readily available • Complaint intake, classification, assignment
and tracking complies with requirements • Reports of misconduct are handled
appropriately • Misconduct investigations are thorough and
objective

Illustrative Data
• Nearly 100% compliance demonstrated in multiple recent OCDM random sample audits
• Misconduct and UOF complaints are significantly down
• Placards describing the external complaint process are posted in every police district

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Maintain thoroughness of investigations • Training requirements identified and being
addressed but not yet completed • Complaint information needs broad
distribution and continuous availability • Continue publishing detailed Annual Reports

46

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 47 of 60
Total NOPD Complaints

Complaint Type
Public Initiated

2013
669 (71%)

2014
654 (75%)

2015

2016

2017

549 (65%)

591 (69.5%)

470 (64%)

Rank Initiated

279 (29%)

215 (25%)

301 (35%)

259 (30.5%)

264 (36%)

TOTAL

948

869

850

850

734

47

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 48 of 60
Academy and In-Service Training
• “NOPD is committed to ensuring that all officers and employees receive adequate training to understand the law and NOPD policy and how to police effectively. NOPD training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers police diligently, have an understanding of and commitment to the constitutional rights of the individuals they encounter, and employ strategies to build community partnerships to more effectively increase public trust and safety. To achieve these outcomes, NOPD agrees to implement the requirements set out below.”
48

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 49 of 60

Academy and In-Service Training

NOPD Reform Highlights
• Updated all lesson plans • Re-sequenced curriculum • Created standards & policies • Improved instructor training

OCDM Findings
• Engagement of Academy Administrator (PhD)
• Effective FTO program • Quality Master Training Plan

Illustrative Data
• 51% increase in training hours • Nearly 100% of officers have
received required training • 98.7% of courses have acceptable
content

Ongoing NOPD Commitments
• Continuous improvement of curriculum
• Continuous improvement of professional development program
• Implementation of new technology

49

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 50 of 60
NOPD Provides 104% more training
hours than required by LA
POST
50

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 51 of 60
Calendar of Academy Re-Sequenced Curriculum

MONDAY

TUESDAY

7:45AM - 8:00AM ROLL CALL

7:45AM - 8:00AM ROLL CALL

8:00AM - 9:00AM INV-29 POST #06-106-R

Burglary Investigation 8:00AM - 9:00AM

Crisis Intervention-

Instructor:

Behavioral

SP-4 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

WEDNESDAY

7:45AM - 8:00AM ROLL CALL

8:00AM - 9:00AM

Crisis Intervention-

Techniques

SP-12 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

7:45AM - 8:00AM ROLL CALL

7:45AM - 8:00AM ROLL CALL

8:00AM -9:00AM

Verbal Communication- 8:00AM - 9:00AM

Test T-8

Tools

UF-30 #14-103-R

Instructor: INV-23:33; DV-2:5; LA-51:57; SP-4:17

9:00AM - 10:00AM INV-30 POST #06-106-R

Burglary Investigation 9:00AM - 10:00AM

Crisis Intervention-

Instructor:

Behavioral

SP-5 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

9:00AM - 10:00AM

Crisis Intervention-

Techniques

SP-13 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

9:00AM - 10:00AM

Verbal Communication- 9:00AM - 10:00AM

Tools

UF-31 #14-103-R

Instructor: INV-23:33; DV-2:5; LA-55:61

Test T-8

10:00AM - 11:00AM

Burglary Report

Exercise

RW-45 03-118-R

Instructor:

10:00AM - 11:00AM

Crisis Intervention- 10:00AM - 11:00AM

Crisis Intervention-

Behavioral

SP-6 POST #09-106-R

Instructor: Techniques

SP-14 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

10:00AM - 11:00AM

Verbal Communication- 10:00AM - 11:00AM

Tactical

UF-32 #14-103-R

Citations

Instructor:

Instructor:

Issuing Traffic PA-50 POST #08-120-R

11:00AM - 12:00PM Investigation Instructor:

Identity Theft INV-31 POST #06-109-R

11:00AM - 12:00PM

Crisis Intervention-

Behavioral

SP-7 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

11:00AM - 12:00PM

Crisis Intervention-

Procedures

SP-15 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

11:00AM - 12:00PM Communication-Tactical Instructor:

Verbal UF-33 #14-103-R

11:00AM - 12:00PM Citations Instructor:

Issuing Traffic PA-51 POST #08-120-R

12:00PM - 12:30PM LUNCH

12:30PM - 1:30PM Investigation Instructor:

Identity Theft INV-32 POST #06-109-R

12:00PM - 12:30PM LUNCH

12:30PM - 1:30PM

Crisis Intervention-

Disorders

SP-8 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

12:00PM - 12:30PM LUNCH

12:30PM - 1:30PM

Crisis Intervention-

Procedures

SP-16 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

12:00PM - 12:30PM LUNCH
12:30PM - 1:30PM TS-1 POST #07-104-R

Motor Vehicle Laws Instructor:

12:00PM - 12:30PM LUNCH
12:30PM - 1:30PM PA-52 POST #08-120-R

Issuing Traffic Citations Instructor:

1:30PM - 2:30PM Investigation Instructor:

Identity Theft INV-33 POST #06-109-R

1:30PM - 2:30PM

Crisis Intervention-

Disorders

SP-9 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

1:30PM - 2:30PM SP-17 POST #09-106-R

Crisis Intervention-Legal 1:30PM - 2:30PM

Instructor:

TS-2 POST #07-104-R

Motor Vehicle Laws Instructor:

1:30PM - 2:30PM Violations Instructor:

Elements-Weapons LA-58 POST #09-106-R

2:30PM - 3:15PM PT-56 POST #12-101-R

Physical Fitness Training 2:30PM - 3:15PM

Crisis Intervention-

Instructor:

Disorders

SP-10 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

2:30PM - 3:15PM PT-58 POST #12-101-R

Physical Fitness Training 2:30PM - 3:15PM

Instructor:

TS-3 POST #07-104-R

Motor Vehicle Laws Instructor:

2:30PM - 3:15PM PT-60 POST #12-101-R

Physical Fitness Training Instructor:

3:15PM - 3:45PM PT-57 POST #12-101-R

Physical Fitness Training 3:15PM - 3:45PM

Crisis Intervention-

Instructor:

Techniques

SP-11 POST #09-106-R

Instructor:

3:15PM - 3:45PM PT-59 POST #12-101-R

HOMEWORK: BURGLARY REPORT

3:45PM - 4:45PM STUDY HALL

Physical Fitness Training 3:15PM - 3:45PM

Instructor:

TS-4 POST #07-104-R

Motor Vehicle Laws Instructor:

3:15PM - 3:45PM PT-61 POST #12-101-R

3:45PM - 4:45PM STUDY HALL

Physical Fitness Training Instructor:
51

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 52 of 60

Nearly all officers have received the
requisite training

100.0% 90.0%

99.6%

99.6%

100.0%

92.9%

100.0%

99.9%

99.4%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

93.2%

100.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Core

In

Service Supervisor

In

Ser

vice

New SupervisoDretective In Service

Command Staff

Firearms

Driving FTO Certification

FTO In Service CIT Certification

CIT In Service

EPIC

52

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 53 of 60

OCDM Academy
Course Evaluations

• The Monitoring Team has observed most instructors and most courses
• Content now meets Consent Decree and legal requirements • OCDM found 98% of the courses reviewed had acceptable content
• Courses and lesson plans are well developed
• Instructors now teach courses competently • Academy now has a more robust professional development
program • Still room for improvement in terms of
• Incorporating “core concepts” into every class • Employing adult learning techniques in every class

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 54 of 60
Areas of Significant Progress But Requiring Additional Effort
• Supervision • Stops, Searches, Arrests • Recruitment • Performance Evaluations • Community Engagement
54

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 55 of 60
Observations About The “Blue Box” Items
• “Significant progress” is not a negative finding, but it is in important finding
• Several of these items go to the very heart of the Consent Decree • Achieving “Full and Effective
Compliance” in these areas will take continued commitment on the part of the NOPD and the Monitoring Team
55

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 56 of 60
Areas Needing Additional Effort

Supervision
-Inconsistent review of force statements by supervisors
-Supervisors not consistently working same shifts as those
they supervise
-Districts not consistently meeting patrol/supervisor
ratio -EWS still not used to full
capacity -Supervisors performing inadequate evaluations -Rollcall training inconsistent
-Inconsistent quality of supervision

Stop, Searches, Arrests
-Inconsistent documentation of searches (boilerplate
language and inaccuracies) -Inconsistent supervisor reviews of search documentation
-Consent searches not consistently approved by
supervisors
-Training in need of further improvement

Recruitment
-Still not attracting adequate quantity and quality of recruits
-Quality of vetting process inconsistent
-Insufficient communication with recruitment partners
-Insufficient internal communications
-Insufficient communications with applicants / recruits -Insufficient analysis of trends/best practices -Processes often inefficient

Performance Evaluations / Promotions
-Supervisors not consistently preparing meaningful evaluations
-Commanders not adequately supervising
evaluation process
-Inconsistent attention to correcting deficiencies in
evaluation process

Community Engagement
-Geographic Deployment Plan not implemented
-Community problem solving approach not fully implemented
-Community Policing Form and Scorecard not fully implemented
-Uneven quality of District meetings
-Room for improvement in using MAX meetings to implement community policing

56

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 57 of 60

From Compliant To Professional

EPIC Peer Intervention Program MAX Management Tool Open Government Data Transparency Critical Incident Video Release Policy NOPD/Loyola Fellowship NOPD/Innocence Project Partnership “Academy 21~” Continuing Policing Education Program Burden Reduction Working Group Active Contributors To National Police Reform Conversation

57

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 58 of 60
A Recipe For Success

Contributors to Past Progress
Highly credible and proven NOPD leadership team Dedicated and energetic Compliance Bureau Professionalization of Academy Effective partnership among NOPD, DOJ, and OCDM Vigilant Monitoring Team Significant OCDM technical assistance Close judicial oversight

Keys To Continued Progress
Empower NOPD leadership to continue reform path Implement additional tools to sustain reforms Continue to devote sufficient resources Continue building community trust Expand Compliance Bureau self-audit capacity Continue effective partnership among NOPD, DOJ, and OCDM Close judicial oversight
58

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 59 of 60
Path Forward
Rely more heavily on internal NOPD audits in areas already in full and effective compliance Finalize reviews/audits of areas nearing full and effective compliance Continue robust audits and assessments of areas not yet in full and effective compliance Continue reviewing ALL serious uses of force Continue providing technical assistance where needed Work with DOJ and NOPD to measure “outcome assessments”
59

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 575 Filed 01/25/19 Page 60 of 60
Conclusion

1

2

3

4

While NOPD had a slow start, the Department has made remarkable progress in recent
years.

The NOPD leadership team deserves significant recognition for entering into an effective
partnership with DOJ and the Monitoring Team.

Our audits and reviews demonstrate the Consent Decree is achieving its purpose
of “ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of New Orleans in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

The Department, to date, has taken reasonable steps toward achieving Full & Effective
Compliance and is moving closer to the two year sustainment period.

60

 
 Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 1

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006-6801 202.747.1900 main 202.747.1901 fax www.sheppardmullin.com

November 11, 2019

202.747.1902 direct jaronie@sheppardmullin.com
File Number: 4813.8319.1468

The Honorable Susie Morgan U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 500 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130
Re: 2018/2019 Biennial Community Survey

Dear Judge Morgan:
On behalf of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and the entire Consent Decree Monitoring Team, I am pleased to submit the attached Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor Reporting the Results of the Third Biennial Community Survey. The findings outlined in this Special Report flow from surveys completed in late 2018 and data analysis in 2019. I will be posting a copy of this Report on the Monitoring Team’s website, www.consentdecreemonitor.com, once it is docketed by the Court. The 2014 Survey Report and the 2016 Survey Report also are posted on the Team’s website.
Thank you for this opportunity to serve the people of New Orleans.

Very truly yours,

Jonathan S. Aronie For SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP* CONSENT DECREE MONITOR NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Attachment
Cc: New Orleans City Attorney U.S. Department of Justice New Orleans Police Department

*Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 109
Special Report of the Consent Decree Monitor For the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree Reporting the Results of the Third Biennial Community Survey Released November 11, 2019
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor New Orleans, Louisiana Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 109 Page 2 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
I. Consent Decree Authority “Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and every two years thereafter, NOPD and the City agree to conduct a reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey of members of the New Orleans community regarding their experiences with and perceptions of NOPD and of public safety. To conduct the biennial community survey, the Monitor shall retain an individual or entity, to be approved by DOJ . . . . NOPD and the City agree to cooperate with the design and conduct of the survey by, for example, helping to organize focus groups of officers and obtaining and providing previous survey instruments and data. The report of the baseline survey and subsequent biennial surveys shall be publicly distributed and available.” Consent Decree Paragraphs 230-233
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 109 Page 3 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
II. Notes “The Monitor shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana], consistent with [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall only have the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by [the Consent Decree]. The Monitoring Team shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role and duties of the City and NOPD, including the Superintendent.” Consent Decree Paragraph 455
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 4 of 109 Page 4 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
III. Table of Contents
I. Consent Decree Authority .......................................................................................................................... 2 II. Notes ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Glossary of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 7 V. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 9
A. Purpose of the Biennial Surveys ........................................................................................................ 9 B. 2018 Biennial Survey Highlights .....................................................................................................10 VI. 2014-2018 Survey Comparisons .......................................................................................................... 13 A. COMMUNITY SURVEY (2014-2018)...............................................................................................13
1. Comparisons by Race.................................................................................................................. 20 2. NOPD District Comparisons ..................................................................................................... 25 B. POLICE OFFICER SURVEY (2014-2018) .......................................................................................31 1. Police Work and Your Working Environment .................................................................. 33 2. Managers and Supervisors ....................................................................................................... 35 3. Personnel and Management Systems................................................................................... 38 4. Community Police and Police/Community Relations.................................................... 40 5. Expectations about the Police Role ....................................................................................... 42 6. The Police Department and the Public ................................................................................ 43 C. DETAINEE SURVEY (2014-2018)....................................................................................................44 1. Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the NOPD.............................................................. 46 2. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities ................................................................. 48 3. Perceptions of Arrest and Use of Force ............................................................................... 49 4. Future Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 51 VII. 2018 Survey Findings ............................................................................................................................... 52 A. COMMUNITY SURVEY (2018)...........................................................................................................52 1. Community Survey Methodology .......................................................................................... 53
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 5 of 109 Page 5 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
2. Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 54 3. Most Recent Interaction with NOPD..................................................................................... 55 4. Community Satisfaction with the NOPD.............................................................................. 57 5. Community Perceptions of Change in the NOPD ............................................................. 59 6. Community Perceptions of NOPD Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness ........ 61 7. Willingness to Cooperate with the NOPD ........................................................................... 63 8. Citizens’ Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities............................................... 64 9. Citizens’ Views of the NOPD and Immigration.................................................................. 66 B. OFFICER SURVEY (2018) ...................................................................................................................67 1. Officer Survey Methodology..................................................................................................... 68 2. Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 68 3. Your Working Environment..................................................................................................... 69 4. Managers and Supervisors ....................................................................................................... 71 5. Personnel and Management Systems................................................................................... 73 6. Community Policing and Police/Community Relations................................................ 75 7. Expectations about the Police Role ....................................................................................... 78 8. The Police Department and the Public ................................................................................ 80 9. The Police Department and Ethical Policing Is Courageous (EPIC) Peer Intervention Program ............................................................................................................................. 82 C. DETAINEE SURVEY (2018)................................................................................................................84 1. Detainee Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ 85 2. Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 86 3. General Attitudes Toward NOPD Officers .......................................................................... 87 4. General Attitudes Toward the NOPD.................................................................................... 90 5. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities ................................................................. 95 6. Perceptions of Arrest .................................................................................................................. 96 7. Future Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 98 VIII. Appendixes............................................................................................................................................100 A. Appendix A: Police Officer Survey Distribution and Graphs.............................................100
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 6 of 109 Page 6 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. Appendix B: Detainee Survey Graphs ........................................................................................ 103 C. Appendix C: Detainee Survey References ................................................................................ 107 D. Appendix D: Community Survey Neighborhoods .................................................................. 108 E. Appendix E: Comparison of City and Survey Demographics ............................................. 109
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 7 of 109
Page 7 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

IV. Glossary of Acronyms

“ASU” “AUSA” “AVL” “BWC” “CIT” “CCMS” “CD” “CIT” “CODIS” “ComStat” “COCO” “CPI” “CSC” “CUC” “DA” “DI-1” “DOJ” “DV” “DVU” “ECW” “EPIC” “EWS” “FBI” “FIT” “FOB” “FTO” “IACP” “ICO” “IPM” “KSA” “LEP” “LGBTQ” “MMPT” “MOU” “NNDDA” “NOFJC” “NOPD” “NPCA” “OCDM” “OIG” “OPSO”

Administrative Services Unit Assistant United States Attorney Automatic Vehicle Locator Body Worn Cameras Crisis Intervention Team Criminal Case Management System Consent Decree Crisis Intervention Team Combined DNA Index System Computer Statistics Community Coordinating [sergeants] California Psychological Inventory Civil Service Commission Citizens United for Change District Attorney Disciplinary Investigation Form Department of Justice Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Unit Electronic Control Weapon Ethical Policing is Courageous (NOPD peer intervention program) Early Warning System Federal Bureau of Investigation Force Investigation Team Field Operations Bureau Field Training Officer International Association of Chiefs of Police Integrity Control Officers Independent Police Monitor Knowledge, Skill and Ability Limited English Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Memorandum of Understanding National Narcotics Detection Dog Association New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Police Department National Police Canine Association Office of Consent Decree Monitor Office of Inspector General Orleans Parish Sherriff’s Office

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 8 of 109
Page 8 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

“PIB” “POST” “PsyQ” “QOL” “RFP” “SA” “SART” “SOD” “SRC” “SUNO” “SVS” “UNO” “USAO” “VAW”

Public Integrity Bureau Police Officer Standards Training Counsel Psychological History Questionnaire Quality of Life [officers] Request for Proposal Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Response Team Special Operations Division Survey Research Center Southern University of New Orleans Special Victims Section University of New Orleans United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New Orleans Violence Against Women

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 9 of 109
Page 9 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

V. Executive Summary
Paragraph 230 of the Consent Decree requires the completion of a biennial survey of members of the New Orleans community “regarding their experiences with and perceptions of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD” or “Department”) and of public safety.” This is the Office of Consent Decree Monitoring Team’s (“OCDM” or “Monitoring Team”) third survey pursuant to Paragraph 230. This 2018 survey, like the 2014 and the 2016 surveys, includes feedback from three groups: NOPD police officers, community members, and detainees. As in years past, the Monitoring Team worked closely with the City, NOPD, and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to develop the survey tool used to solicit responses from each group. The Monitoring Team, however, administered the actual community and detainee surveys independently.1
A. Purpose of the Biennial Surveys
Although we have honed the survey instrument over time, methodological changes have been rare. The cross-sectional study design addresses a representative population of the community, officers, and detainees. Ongoing survey results track experiences and perceptions of NOPD and public safety in New Orleans. The purpose of the biennial surveys is to measure public perception of the NOPD’s reform efforts. To ensure broad representation, the surveys encompass a representative sample of NOPD police personnel, the local public, and detainees within the Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) system. (CD 231) The sampling approach provided a statistically sound method of making inferences about the wider New Orleans population with regard to Consent Decree reform and the NOPD generally.2

1

The NOPD assisted with the administration of the police officer survey by

distributing and collecting the surveys. As with the community and detainee

surveys, however, the Monitoring Team prepared the survey, approved the method

of administration, and analyzed the results.

2

The primary benefits of this cross-sectional study approach include (1) the breadth

of spatial and demographic coverage is more likely than other approaches to obtain

data based on a relatively representative sample; (2) the research produces data

based on real-world observations (empirical data); and (3) the survey research

considers diverse, relevant populations including community members from over

25 local neighborhoods, NOPD officers and personnel of all rank, and those actively

detained after interacting with NOPD, producing a large amount of data.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 10 of 109
Page 10 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

The Monitoring Team developed and conducted its initial baseline survey in 2014, and completed its first follow-up survey in 2016. Our 2014 and 2016 survey findings were reported publicly, and remain available electronically at www.consentdecreemonitor.com. The findings outlined in this report flow from surveys completed in late 2018 and data analysis in 2019.
B. 2018 Biennial Survey Highlights
The Monitoring Team’s most recent survey reflects a continued positive trend in community, officer, and detainee perceptions of the Department. For example:
In the area of community perception, compared to 2014:
• Respondents’ perceptions of their recent contact with the NOPD improved from 2014 to 2018 across several items including: officers explaining the reasons for a stop (from 2.63 in 2014 to 2.77 in 2018); officers giving subjects the opportunity to explain themselves (from 2.52 in 2014 to 2.77 in 2018); officers doing their job (from 2.55 in 2014 to 2.86 in 2018); as well as general satisfaction with treatment by police officers (from 2.54 in 2014 to 2.62 in 2018), and overall experiences with their police interactions (from 2.52 in 2014 to 2.58 in 20183).

• Perceptions of corruption within the NOPD have continued to move in a positive direction (i.e., lower perception of corruption) since 2014. Specifically, the mean 2014 score of 2.22 improved to 2.35 in 2016 and improved again to 2.53 in 2018. This 0.31 point improvement is sizable.
• Respondents’ views of whether the scandals associated with the NOPD in the past reflect the current ethos of NOPD continued to improve steadily over the years, from a 2.43 in 2014 to a 2.58 in 2016 to a 2.69 in 2018, reflecting a sizable overall 0.26 improvement.

•

Respondents’ attitudes about NOPD’s commitment to procedural justice4 and

its trustworthiness improved from 2014 to 2016, and remained close to the

3

The 2016 data saw a dip downward in the mean score of this item to 2.38.

4

“Procedural justice” is a term often used to capture multiple elements relating to

fairness in the policing process.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 11 of 109
Page 11 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
same level through 2018. White respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness slightly improved each period. Black respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness went up from 2014 to 2016, and remained steady through 2018.
In the area of police officer perception, compared to 2014:
• Perceptions of the NOPD working environment were relatively troubling to some officers in 2014. Those perceptions improved in 2016 and remained close to the same level through 2018.
• Officers’ perceptions of NOPD command staff improved from 2014 through 2018. More officers agreed that community members, fellow officers, and supervisors treat them with respect. Further, officer views of whether their commanders are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking continued to improve (with an average score of 2.87 in 2014 improving to 3.12 in 2016 and to 3.22 in 2018.) The overall improvement of 0.35 is sizable.
• From 2014 through 2018, officers’ perceptions of investigations conducted by the Public Integrity Bureau (NOPD’s internal affairs unit, “PIB”) consistently improved. Among other things, the survey has shown a steady decline in the number of officers who fear they will be punished for making an honest mistake (from an average score of 3.2 in 2014 to 3.18 in 2016 to 3.08 in 2018).
In the area of detainee perception, compared to 2014:
• Respondents’ perceptions of the NOPD improved from 2014 through 2018.
• One of the largest changes was seen for the item asking if the officer informed the community member of his or her rights. In 2014, only onethird of detainees said this was true. In 2016, that number jumped to approximately 60%, and to nearly 80% in 2018.
In short, the 2014, 2016, and 2018 biennial surveys collectively demonstrate that officers, detainees, and the community continue to perceive NOPD as moving in the right direction. The Consent Decree was crafted by the NOPD, the City, and the DOJ to transform the NOPD and to secure the benefits of a constitutional police department for all. These protections include clear policies that give officers meaningful guidance; officers who have respect for
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 12 of 109
Page 12 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
all members of the community; robust training that incorporates procedural justice and constitutional standards; thorough and competent investigations into police use of force and allegations of misconduct; and strong partnerships with the community. The results of the most recent biennial survey indicate the goals of the Consent Decree are being realized.
Not only are we seeing ongoing progress in areas of prior improvement, but we also are noting improvement in areas where prior respondents perceived problems. In fact, the survey’s findings across many areas reflect respondents’ perceptions of the Department that either remain stable or continue to improve. The survey revealed no areas of material backsliding. Survey items regarding the trustworthiness of NOPD officers continue to reflect improvement. Similarly, the public’s perception of whether NOPD officers follow departmental procedures continues to reflect improvement as well. Items regarding satisfaction with officers’ behavior, being treated with dignity, and politeness show improvement from 2014 to 2016, and have remained stable from 2016 to 2018. While perceptions often varied by race, the gap between white and black community members’ responses has narrowed with each survey period.
With respect to NOPD officers themselves, our prior surveys indicated many officers perceived unfairness to them in the citizen complaint and internal complaint process. That negative perception persisted, but did not worsen, from 2016 to 2018.
Detainees’ perception findings continue to indicate stable levels of satisfaction after direct interactions with NOPD. Respondents noted NOPD officers treated them with dignity, with slight increases in perceptions of respect and politeness over time. Detainees are more likely to report a perception that NOPD engages in racial profiling, and to distrust officers, relative to respondents from the officer or community survey samples.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind when reading the survey results that the survey is designed to reveal the perceptions of officers, community members, and detainees. Negative perceptions identified in these findings may reflect a genuine problem or merely a perceived (but not actual) problem. Over time, however, these biennial NOPD survey results continue to reflect the rich roadmap of collaborative reform efforts undertaken by NOPD, City leaders, the Monitoring Team, DOJ, and the local community. Across diverse respondents, many trends highlighted by ongoing survey data show ongoing improvements. Importantly, even areas noted for additional improvement are not eroding, but rather are remaining consistent (or better) over time through the most recent survey period.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 13 of 109
Page 13 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VI. 2014-2018 Survey Comparisons

A. COMMUNITY SURVEY (2014-2018)

The Monitoring Team has conducted three biennial surveys of New Orleans community members to evaluate relationships between the Department and the community it serves. The surveys, conducted in 2014, 2016, and 2018, reflect how community perceptions of NOPD have changed in the years since the NOPD entered into the Consent Decree. The demographics of all three samples are presented in Table 1.5 Reported demographics of respondents were reasonably consistent, and many trends can be observed over time.

• First, the sampled respondents have become increasingly older with the proportion of respondents between 25 and 34 decreasing from 24.2% to 13.8%, and respondents who are younger than 24 dropping from 5.1% to 2.0%.

• Second, African-Americans are strongly represented, going from approximately 50.5% to 59.9% of the sample. Additionally, more respondents in 2018 reported that they were married, indicated they were born in New Orleans, and indicated they owned their home (as opposed to renting).

• Finally, the proportion of individuals in the sample who had interacted with NOPD officers recently decreased from 58.7% in 2014 to 34.8% in 2018.

These trends can be seen in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Demographics
Gender Male Female
Age Younger than 24 25-34

% in 2014
49.2 48.1
5.1 24.2

% in 2016
50.3 48.7
5.4 19.3

% in 2018
53.5 46.1
2.0 13.8

5

For 2018, OCDM contacted 1,717 community members, receiving 636 valid

responses for a response rate of 37.0%. In 2016, 2,444 were contacted with 869

community members completing the survey (response rate of ~35.6%).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 14 of 109
Page 14 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics
35-44 45-54 55-64 Greater than 65 Race/Ethnicity Black White Asian Hispanic Other Education Less than High School High School College Degree Graduate/Professional Degree Marital Status Single Married Divorced Widowed Partnered Born in New Orleans Yes No Own Home Own Rent Reported Contact with Police Any Interaction Interaction: Stopped Note: Percentages may not sum to 100.

% in 2014 20.4 18.6 15.7 12.9
50.5 37.9 1.3 2.6 3.6
10.9 46.8 25.3 12.8
40.4 33.5 11.7 5.8 4.9
62.8 33.2
47.4 44.3
58.7 38.4

% in 2016 18.5 14.5 17.5 17.6
54.8 35.6 0.6 1.0 5.2
6.1 45.0 34.2 10.8
40.4 38.8 7.2 5.8 3.3
70.2 29.8
61.7 35.6
41.4 13.9

% in 2018 25.9 22.8 19.2 15.6
59.9 34.4 1.3 0.8 2.8
9.5 44.2 31.5 13.5
36.6 48.1 7.1 3.1 4.1
81.6 18.2
69.5 29.7
34.8 20.8

As discussed in greater detail below, overall, respondents’ perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD improved from 2014 to 2016. This improvement held steady through 2018. Respondents’ levels of satisfaction of being stopped or questioned by NOPD officers were stable from 2014 to 2016, but improved in 2018. Respondents’ perceptions of corruption in the NOPD improved across all three surveys. Respondents’ perceptions of NOPD’s procedural justice and trustworthiness improved from 2014 to 2016. As with the perceptions of recent contact, this improvement was sustained in 2018. Interestingly, the scale or degree of improvement varied if the individual was recently stopped or questioned

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 15 of 109
Page 15 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

by the NOPD. While the positive trend was true for the “no contact” and “positive contact” survey groups, the “negative contact” group presented a different trend: a considerable increase in perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness of NOPD officers from 2016 to 2018.6
The trend in respondents’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD also varied by the type of contact they had with the NOPD. The group of individuals with no recent contact with the NOPD had increased willingness to cooperate across all three surveys. The group of individuals with positive recent contact with the NOPD increased from 2014 to 2016 and then remained stable in 2018. The group of individuals with negative recent contact with the NOPD had consistently low willingness to cooperate with the NOPD.
Generally, white respondents had more positive views of the NOPD along these dimensions than black respondents, but the trends in these perceptions varied. Summary results are reported primarily for the two primary racial groups represented demographically (white and black); however, response are collected for all racial/ethnic groups. Black respondents’ perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD improved consistently across all three surveys. White respondents’ perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD improved from 2014 to 2016, but not from 2016 to 2018. Black respondents’ perceptions of being stopped or questioned by the NOPD progressed across all three surveys, but white respondents’ perceptions remained consistent. White respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness slightly improved across all three surveys. Black respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness progressed from 2014 to 2016, and remained steady from 2016 to 2018. Similarly, white respondents’ willingness

6

Respondents reported whether they have interacted with an NOPD officer.

Responses were organized by whether a respondent had no contact, a positive

contact, or a negative contact with NOPD. The labels “positive” and “negative” are

rough approximations. The “positive contact” category indicates the respondent

they had an interaction with the NOPD in the past two years, but was not stopped or

questioned by the NOPD. The “negative contact” category indicates the respondent

had an interaction with the NOPD in the past two years, and also indicates he/she

was stopped or questioned by the NOPD. The reason for contact or the quality of the

interaction may be relevant since it may be expected that contacts would be more

positive if the individual called the police for help or had a casual conversation (the

positive contact category), than if he or she was stopped or questioned (the negative

contact category).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 16 of 109
Page 16 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

to cooperate with the NOPD improved slightly across all three surveys. Black respondents’ willingness to cooperate progressed from 2014 to 2016, and remained stable from 2016 to 2018.

Table 2 displays the subset of questions asked of individuals who had been stopped or questioned (as opposed to contact as a victim, witness, or just in passing). Participants indicated beliefs about/attitudes toward NOPD officers on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Table 2 presents the mean for selected item, which indicates an overall estimate of the level of agreement with the statement. Scores in the table (and the other tables presented in this report) represent means for all respondents in that survey year. Thus, higher scores indicate greater agreement and lower scores indicate less agreement. The findings shown in Table 2 are encouraging. In 2016, respondents indicated a greater level of agreement to items asking if the police officer explained the reason being stopped or questioned, if the officer gave a chance to explain the situation, and whether the officer did his or her job. The findings showed greater agreement across each of the five items over time.

Table 2. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD

2014 Mean1 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer explained the reasons why.

2.63

2.65

2.77

When dealing with me, the police officer gave me a chance to explain the situation.

2.52

2.61

2.77

Overall, the police officer did his or her job.

2.55

2.71

2.86

I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer.

2.54

2.44

2.62

I was satisfied with my experience with the police.

2.52

2.38

2.58

1 2014 means should be interpreted with caution. Survey administration did not prohibit individuals

from responding to the items if they were not stopped in 2014, but did in 2016 and 2018.

After the series of questions regarding recent experiences with the NOPD, respondents were asked for their general perceptions of the NOPD across a number of dimensions (Table 3). Responses to these items ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Respondents’ belief, that corruption in the NOPD is low, improved consistently from 2014 to 2018, as did the belief that the scandals associated with NOPD are in the past and do not reflect current practices. Notably, respondents’ belief that there is more police presence in the French Quarter than other areas of New Orleans also increased from 2014 to 2018. Community members’ satisfaction with the way NOPD officers do their jobs

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 17 of 109
Page 17 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

(across several items) improved from 2014 to 2016 and remained about the same through 2018.

Table 3. Citizens’ satisfaction with NOPD
Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low. There is more police presence in the French Quarter than in other areas of New Orleans. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs. When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime.

2014 Mean 2.22 3.17
2.43
2.29 2.02 2.63

2016 Mean 2.35 3.41
2.58
2.50 2.06 2.68

2018 Mean 2.53 3.51
2.69
2.55 2.10 2.60

The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) recommended that police departments utilize procedural justice to improve relationships between the police and the public. Table 4 presents 10 items regarding these perceptions. There was an improvement in community members’ agreement that NOPD officers are not racist, that officers treat victims of crime well, trust in the NOPD, and respect of the NOPD, however, from 2016 to 2018 the expectation that officers will treat the respondent fairly saw a slightly negative shift from 2016 to 2018.

Table 4. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

2014 Mean 2016 Mean

Police officers in New Orleans are honest.

2.47

2.60

Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity.

2.21

2.52

Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

2.41

2.64

Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

2.42

2.70

Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities.

2.29

2.35

I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly.

2.50

2.97

New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well.

2.34

2.54

I trust the NOPD.

2.38

2.48

I respect the NOPD.

2.71

2.83

I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. 2.35

2.57

2018 Mean 2.61
2.54
2.62 2.67
2.43
2.89
2.61 2.57 3.00 2.58

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 18 of 109 Page 18 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 3. Citizens’ Perceptions of procedural justice
The items in Table 4 were used to construct a scale of citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness of the NOPD. This scale is depicted in Figure 3 above, which shows citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice from 2014 through 2018 relative to whether they reported no contact, positive contact, or negative contact with NOPD. For respondents with negative contact with the NOPD, perceptions of the NOPD improved from 2014 to 2016, and improved again more substantially from 2016 to 2018. Comparatively, for respondents with no contact or positive contact with the NOPD, the perceptions improved substantially from 2014 to 2016, and remained stable from 2016 to 2018. The final comparison across all three surveys contained three items asking community members about their willingness to cooperate with the NOPD (Table 5). The first item asked respondents about their willingness to report dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD. The mean scores for this item show an increase from 2014 to 2016 and then a slight decrease in 2018. Still, responses were around the 3.0 score indicating overall agreement with the statement in all three surveys. The next item asked respondents whether they would call the NOPD if they witnessed or became aware of a crime. Once again, a considerable increase was seen from 2014 to 2016. From 2016 to 2018, responses remained stable at around 3.0, indicating respondents’ agreement that they would call the NOPD upon witnessing or becoming aware of a crime. Finally, the last item asked respondents if they would help the NOPD find someone if they were asked. As with the last item, responses improved from 2014 to 2016 and remained stable in 2018.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 19 of 109
Page 19 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD

2014 Mean 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

2.94

3.06

3.00

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed or became aware of a crime.1

2.80

3.00

3.01

If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

2.58

2.78

2.82

1Item was worded in the opposite direction in 2014. The mean has been adjusted to be consistent with

the scale in 2016 and 2018.

The items in Table 5 were converted into an overall scale measuring willingness to cooperate with NOPD (Displayed in Table 6 and Figure 4). Individuals with no contact with NOPD reported increased willingness to cooperate with the NOPD from 2014 to 2016 and further improved willingness from 2016 to 2018. The negative contact group had similar means across all three surveys. The positive contact group had the highest level of agreement and thus the most willingness to cooperate with the NOPD.

Table 6. Summary of citizens’ willingness to cooperate

2014 Mean

2016 Mean

Full Sample

2.76

2.94

No Contact

2.73

2.88

Positive Contact

2.94

3.17

Negative Contact

2.70

2.73

2018 Mean 2.94 2.96 3.14 2.77

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 20 of 109 Page 20 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 4. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate with the NOPD

1. Comparisons by Race

Since respondents conclude the survey by documenting demographic information, survey items can be examined by race or other reported characteristics. This section considers potential differences in perceptions of NOPD by racial group by comparing the average mean from white respondents to the average mean reported from black respondents on numerous survey items. The comparisons in this section examine differences between black and white respondents. Table 7 compares the differences between the categories to determine whether the difference between racial groups were smaller or larger in each of the biennial surveys. Black and white respondents are the groups compared because, together, they make up slightly over 90% of the sample in all three biennial surveys. Table 7 begins these comparisons by returning to the items asked about recent contact with the NOPD. The findings of Table 7 show a definitive trend. The gap between black and white respondents remained at about 0.40 across each of the items between the 2014 and 2016 biennial surveys. However, in 2018, this gap was much smaller at around 0.20, meaning that respondents’ perceptions by race are showing less of a difference and trending toward alignment in their views of the NOPD.

Table 7. Differences in perceptions of most recent contact by race (“Mean” value is the reported

gap between black and white respondents)

2014 Mean 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy.

0.31

0.51

0.11

I believe the police officer was following New Orleans Police Department procedures.

0.47

0.37

0.24

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 21 of 109
Page 21 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Differences in perceptions of most recent contact by race (“Mean” value is the reported

gap between black and white respondents)

2014 Mean 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

0.43

0.38

0.27

The police officer treated me with dignity.

0.45

0.42

0.12

The police officer treated me with respect.

0.35

0.38

0.17

The police officer was polite when dealing with me.

0.40

0.34

0.15

Summary

0.40

0.40

0.18

Figure 5 provides some context for why this difference has narrowed. Specifically, from 2014 to 2016, both black and white respondents’ perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD improved. Further this increase was similar across both groups. In 2018, black respondents’ perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD progressed again, while white respondents’ perceptions declined. Still, white respondents had more positive perceptions of their recent contact with the NOPD in each of the surveys.

Figure 5. Citizens’ perceptions of recent contact by race

Unlike the findings of Table 7, these items showed a consistently decreasing disparity between black and white respondents who were recently stopped or questioned by the NOPD. For example, the first item asking whether the police officer explained the reasons why the respondent was stopped or questioned had a difference of 0.31 in 2014, which dropped to 0.20 in 2016, and finally 0.04 in 2018. A similar positive perception trend was seen for items asking whether the police officer did his or her job, whether the respondent was satisfied with how he/she was treated by the police officer, and whether the individual was satisfied with his/her experience with NOPD.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 22 of 109
Page 22 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Differences in perceptions of being stopped or questioned by race (“Mean” value is the

reported gap between black and white respondents)

2014 Mean1 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

If I was stopped or questioned, the police officer explained the reasons why.

0.31

0.20

0.04

When dealing with me, the police officer gave me a chance to explain the situation.

0.28

0.24

0.04

Overall, the police officer did his or her job.

0.51

0.13

0.11

I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer.

0.43

0.27

0.17

I was satisfied with my experience with the police.

0.41

0.36

0.28

Summary

0.38

0.25

0.13

12014 means should be interpreted with caution. Survey administration did not prohibit individuals

from responding to the items if they were not stopped in 2014, but did in 2016 and 2018.

Figure 6. Perceptions of being stopped or questioned by race

Figure 6 again shows the mean plotted across racial groups for all three surveys. On the one hand, white respondents’ perceptions of being stopped or questioned stayed around 2.8 (relatively positive perceptions of the incident) across all three surveys. On the other hand, black respondents’ perceptions of being stopped or questioned improved substantially across the three surveys.
Table 9 presents the differences in perceptions of procedural justice and trust in the NOPD across racial groups. Items regarding NOPD officers’ honesty, fairness, and professionalism saw the gap in racial differences continue to align from 2014 to 2016, with no change from
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 23 of 109
Page 23 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

2016 to 2018. Other items showed increasing differences (e.g., NOPD officers have more integrity than other officers and NOPD officers are not racist); others showed no continuous trend.

Table 9. Differences in procedural justice and trust in the NOPD by race (“Mean” value is the

reported gap between black and white respondents)

2014 Mean 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

Police officers in New Orleans are honest.

0.49

0.31

0.27

Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity.

0.06

0.09

0.18

Police officers in New Orleans are fair.

0.36

0.27

0.25

Police officers in New Orleans are professional.

0.37

0.27

0.27

Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities.

0.09

0.02

0.21

I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly.

0.57

0.15

0.27

New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well.

0.25

0.06

0.35

I trust the NOPD.

0.51

0.40

0.43

I respect the NOPD.

0.23

0.18

0.20

I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.

0.42

0.24

0.32

Summary

0.33

0.21

0.27

In Figure 7, white respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trust trended upward across the three surveys. Black respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice and trust increased from 2014 to 2016 and remained stable from 2016 to 2018, but the mean was lower for black respondents on each of the three surveys. While white respondents’ scores were consistently above the midpoint, representing positive perceptions of the NOPD, black respondents’ scores were below the midpoint and moved to neutral over time.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 24 of 109 Page 24 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 7. Citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice and trust by race

Considering the item “Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities” is particularly interesting for racial comparisons. Both white and black respondents indicated overall disagreement with the statement in 2014 (black: M = 2.23, white: M = 2.32). Both groups’ perceptions improved, but were overall still negative, in 2016 (black: M = 2.35, white: M = 2.37). In 2018, white respondents’ mean response indicated a relatively more neutral perception of racism or bias (M = 2.56) than black respondents (M = 2.35) overall (on a scale of Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), or Strongly Agree (4)).

Table 10 examined differences in willingness to cooperate by racial group, showing changes in the gap between black and white respondents over time.

Table 10. Differences in willingness to cooperate by race (“Mean” value is the reported gap

between black and white respondents)

2014 Mean 2016 Mean 2018 Mean

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

0.49

0.26

0.32

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed or became aware of a crime.1

0.48

0.32

0.43

If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

0.53

0.54

0.55

Summary

0.51

0.38

0.41

1Item was worded in the opposite direction in 2014. The mean has been adjusted to be consistent with

the scale in 2016 and 2018.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 25 of 109 Page 25 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 8 shows white respondents’ perceptions were more positive than black respondents’ perceptions. White respondents’ willingness to cooperate slightly increased from 2014 to 2016 and from 2016 to 2018. Black respondents’ willingness to cooperate increased substantially from 2014 to 2016, and remained constant from 2016 to 2018.
Figure 8. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate by race
2. NOPD District Comparisons Beginning with the 2016 survey, respondents’ neighborhoods were recorded. The 2016 report aggregated neighborhoods at the NOPD-district level. To aggregate at the district level, NOPD crime analysts assisted in allocating neighborhoods to the appropriate police district. Many neighborhoods were exclusively located within one district. Other neighborhoods were split between two districts. In these cases, analysts with knowledge of NOPD districts and New Orleans’ neighborhoods assigned the neighborhood to the most appropriate district. Appendix A lists each neighborhood and the district that it was assigned. Table 11 breaks down the sample by police district and year. The first set of analyses examining survey responses by police district uses the first six items on the survey that assessed perceptions of recent contact with the NOPD. The surveys administered in 2016 and 2018 allowed for comparisons of community relations across police districts. The values in Table 12 show how responses in each district improved or worsened from 2016 to 2018. Positive values indicate the average response improved from 2016 to 2018; negative values indicate the converse. There were noticeable differences across districts. Specifically, Districts 1, 2, 6, and 8 saw improvements in perceptions of recent contact with an officer. The overall summary
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 26 of 109
Page 26 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

results compiled for items shown in Table 12 below illustrate steadily improving perceptions of recent contact for most districts, including Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. Figure 9 illustrates residents’ perception of recent contact, by district. All means were above the midpoint in 2018. Improvements in positive perceptions of the police can be noticed continually across most districts, with the exception of the 5th and 4th District (both still remain at or above the midpoint however). The population estimated from the 1st District’s geographic boundary had a smaller sample size, as well as 8th District, due to limited access to residential units within areas of the French Quarter and multiunit property.

Table 11. NOPD district sample sizes

2016

Full Sample

Recent Contact

N

N (%)

1

22

6 (27.27)

2

93

32 (34.41)

3

161

72 (44.72)

4

188

78 (41.49)

5

136

64 (47.06)

6

93

40 (43.01)

7

113

37 (32.74)

8

48

28 (58.33)

Recent Stop
N (%) 1 (4.55)
14 (15.05) 15 (9.32) 37 (19.68) 21 (15.44) 9 (9.68) 18 (15.93) 3 (6.25)

Full Sample
N 46 37
155 137
68 59 107 19

2018 Recent Contact N (%) 19 (41.30) 9 (24.32) 49 (31.61) 59 (43.07) 20 (29.41) 13 (22.03) 42 (39.25) 6 (31.58)

Recent Stop
N (%) 10 (21.74)
3 (8.11) 28 (18.06) 38 (27.74) 15 (22.06)
4 (6.78) 28 (26.17) 3 (15.79)

Table 12. Changes in perceptions of most recent contact by district

District

1

2

3

4

5

6

When interacting with the

police officer, I felt he/she 0.51 0.22 -0.01 -0.04 -0.10 0.26

was trustworthy.

I believe the police officer

was following New

Orleans

Police

0.56

-0.02

0.15

0.07 -0.25 0.28

Department procedures.

I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

0.36

0.23

0.09 -0.11 -0.22 0.15

The police officer treated me with dignity.

0.25

0.23

0.04 -0.08 -0.21 0.28

The police officer treated me with respect.

0.20

0.12

0.02 -0.11 -0.27 0.23

7

8

0.32 0.26

0.08 0.33
0.16 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.00 0.26

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 27 of 109
Page 27 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Changes in perceptions of most recent contact by district

District

1

2

3

4

5

6

The police officer was

polite when dealing with 0.46 0.36 0.05 -0.08 -0.38 0.26

me.

Summary

0.39 0.19 0.06 -0.06 -0.24 0.24

7

8

0.03 0.40

0.11 0.29

Figure 9. Citizens’ perceptions of recent contact by district

Table 13 returns to the issue of procedural justice and trustworthiness and utilizes the full sample, rather than individuals that had recent contact with the NOPD. The summary finding of the items presented in Table 13 display positive changes in perceptions within District 1, 2, 3 (to a smaller degree), 6 and 8. Finally, Districts 4, 5, and 7 saw slight shifts in perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness.

Table 13. Changes in trust in the NOPD by district

1

2

3

Police officers in New Orleans are honest.

0.10

0.23

0.06

Compared to other places,

NOPD officers have more 0.17 0.18 0.04

integrity.

District

4

5

-0.09 0.01

-0.05 -0.08

6

7

8

0.07 -0.07 0.17

0.18 0.01 0.02

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 28 of 109
Page 28 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 13. Changes in trust in the NOPD by district

Police officers in New Orleans are fair. Police officers in New Orleans are professional. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities. I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well. I trust the NOPD. I respect the NOPD. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. Summary

1 0.34 0.18
0.32
-0.11
0.51 0.49 0.08 0.32 0.21

2

3

0.16 -0.06

0.13 -0.13

0.24 0.19

0.14 0.00

0.34 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.27 0.16 0.20 0.09
0.22 0.05

District

4

5

-0.07 -0.06

-0.05 -0.06

0.01 0.03

-0.18 -0.27

-0.03 0.07 -0.02 -0.15
-0.06

0.02 -0.07 0.22 -0.15
-0.05

6

7

8

0.13 0.03 0.18

0.16 -0.09 0.15

0.13 -0.09 -0.15

0.11 -0.15 0.14

0.17 -0.10 0.09 0.16 -0.10 0.02 0.34 0.13 0.48 0.25 -0.08 -0.11
0.16 -0.07 0.09

Figure 10. Citizens’ perceptions of trust in the NOPD by district

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 29 of 109
Page 29 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 14 presents changes in respondents’ willingness to cooperate, by police district. The summary finding from all items related to changes in willingness to cooperate noted in Table 14 continue to move in a positive direction across Districts 2, 3, 7, and especially 8.

Table 14. Changes in willingness to cooperate by district

District

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I would report a dangerous or

suspicious activity to the -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.17 -0.16 -0.05 -0.04 0.32

NOPD.

I would call the NOPD if I

witnessed or became aware of -0.03 0.19 0.07 -0.13 -0.20 -0.04 0.09 0.37

a crime.1

If asked, I would help the

NOPD find someone suspected of committing a

0.08

0.29 0.03 -0.08 0.00 -0.14 0.13 0.25

crime.

Summary

-0.03 0.16 0.03 -0.11 -0.11 -0.08 0.08 0.31

Figure 11. Citizens’ willingness to cooperate by district

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 30 of 109
Page 30 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Neighborhood Assignment
Neighborhood
Algiers Point Audubon Behrman Bywater City Park East Riverside Filmore Florida French Quarter Gentilly Woods Lake Terrace & Oaks Leonidas Little Woods Lower 9th Ward Lower Garden District Marigny Marlyville/Fontainebleau McDonogh MidCity Milan Milneburg Old Aurora Plum Orchard Seventh Ward St. Claude St. Roch Tall Timbers/Brechtel U.S. Naval Support Area West End

NOPD District
4 2 4 5 3 6 3 5 8 3 3 2 7 5 6 8 2 4 1 6 3 4 7 5 5 5 4 4 3

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 31 of 109 Page 31 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. POLICE OFFICER SURVEY (2014-2018) The Monitoring Team’s biennial survey encompasses police officers as well as civilians. The 2014 and 2016 survey results have been reported in earlier OCDM reports and are available on the OCDM website. These surveys track changes of NOPD officer perceptions and attitudes over time. Across a variety of measures, officer perceptions and attitudes moved in a positive direction from 2014 to 2016 and remained stable from 2016 to 2018. This is a very positive finding for police reform efforts as it demonstrates that the changes implemented as a result of the Consent Decree have both improved officer perceptions of NOPD and the police role, and have been sustained over the long term. The average age and years of experience continued a downward trend in 2018. The percentage of officers who indicated they were female or African-American in 2018 fell. However, the largest difference was seen in the percentage of respondents indicating whether or not they reside in the City of New Orleans. In 2018, more officers indicated they were not from New Orleans than in previous surveys. The overall size of the officer population has not shifted dramatically during the surveying period.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 32 of 109
Page 32 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographic comparisons7 2014 (%)

Gender

Male

66.4

Female

12.0

Race

White

26.7

Black

33.2

Latino/Hispanic

0.9

Other

6.0

New Orleans Resident

Yes

51.9

No

32.3

2016 (%)
53.0 20.6
23.5 35.6 2.1 7.5
50.5 32.7

2018 (%)
54.7 13.4
24.4 27.6 4.2 4.5
37.3 42.0

7

In 2018, NOPD reported to OCDM the following demographic snapshot:

Male (77%)

Female (23%)

White (40%)

Black (54%)

Latino/Hispanic (4%)

Other (2%)

New Orleans Resident Yes (51%)

New Orleans Resident No (49%)

PO/SPO Non Detective (68%)

Detective PO/SPO (9%)

Sergeant (17%)

Lieutenant/Captain/Major (5%)

Commander+ (2%)

Mean Age (41)

Mean Years of Experience (14)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 33 of 109
Page 33 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographic comparisons7

2014 (%)

2016 (%)

2018 (%)

Rank Police Officer Detective Sergeant Lieutenant/Captain Commander/Other

44.1

49.8

50.3

12.5

10.0

10.7

13.1

15.7

11.0

6.2

5.0

2.0

3.1

0.4

0.3

Age (Mean)

43.6

41.2

39.6

Years of Experience (Mean)

16.3

12.8

11.4

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

1. Police Work and Your Working Environment

The first substantive section of the survey examined the NOPD’s working environment (see Table 2). As noted in the 2016 comparison report, sizable differences in responses were seen between 2014 and 2016. However, from 2016 to 2018 very few differences were seen.

Table 2. Avg. Responses to Section I: Police Work and Your Working Environment

2014

2016

2018

Average Average Average

1. Citizens in my district treat me with respect.

2.75

3.06

2.97

2. In my District, my fellow officers treat me with respect.

3.36

3.45

3.50

3. In my District, my supervisors treat me with respect.

3.24

3.43

3.41

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment.

2.50

3.08

3.13

5. I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively.

2.49

3.03

3.01

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 34 of 109
Page 34 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Avg. Responses to Section I: Police Work and Your Working Environment

2014

2016

2018

Average Average Average

6. I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively.

1.87

2.46

2.54

8. Overall, within the NOPD, how would you describe the

quality of relationships among differing racial and 2.84

3.13

3.11

ethnic groups?

The first section of the police officer survey asked respondents for their perceptions of their working environment. Items were asked on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) with the exception of item 8, which was on a scale from 1 (Very Bad) to 4 (Very Good). All seven items were coded such that higher values represented a better working environment. Table 2 presents the average (“M”) response to the items. The average response provides a more concise method of comparison given differences in sample sizes from 2014 to 2016. Remarkably, each item had a higher average response in 2018 than in 2014. While perceptions of the NOPD working environment were troubling in 2014, with a mean score around the midpoint on the scale, data reflect a positive trend with a mean score above the “agree” statement—a positive outlook on the working environment. Thus, respondents continue to report better perceptions of their NOPD working environment over time.
The 2018 survey also provides us the first opportunity to look at changes in why individuals join the NOPD, as the question was first asked on the officer survey in 2016 (see Table 3) and not in 2014. Interestingly, no response option received more support in 2016 than in 2018. However, there was variation in how much support progressed for each response. Roughly the same proportion of officers indicated they joined the NOPD to help the community become a safer place, to fight crime, for the job security, to help people, to work details, and because it is a family tradition. This finding suggests officers held more positive perceptions of the NOPD working environment in 2018.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 35 of 109
Page 35 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Reasons for Joining the NOPD I joined the NOPD because:

2016 (%)

2018 (%)

It is a good paying job.

14.2

31.3

It is exciting.

28.5

39.1

I want to help the community become a safer place.

68.0

69.4

I want to fight crime.

48.8

50.0

It provides valuable career opportunities.

30.3

40.6

It provides job security.

33.8

39.6

I want to help people.

66.9

69.4

I want to work details.

6.8

9.2

It is a tradition in my family.

8.9

8.5

2. Managers and Supervisors

The second section of the survey asked officers for their perceptions of NOPD managers and supervisors. Substantial differences existed between 2014 and 2016, with scores shifting from around the mid-point on a four-point scale—neutral perceptions of managers and supervisors—to scores well above the “Agree” response—positive perceptions of managers and supervisors. The data from 2018 are best summarized as stable. Each item had scores similar to the 2016 average, and above the “Agree” response category (a score of 3.0).

Table 4. Avg. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

2014 Average

2016 Average

2018 Average

9. Officers in my district treat other officers of differing genders the same.

2.79

3.24

3.21

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 36 of 109
Page 36 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Avg. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

2014 Average

10. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing genders the same.

2.62

11. Within NOPD, officers treat other officers of differing race/ethnicity the same.

2.79

12. Within NOPD, supervisors treat officers of differing race/ethnicity the same.

2.68

13. Officers in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same.

2.87

14. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same.

2.85

15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work.

2.97

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor.

3.24

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of thinking.

2.87

18. My district/division commander is trying to improve NOPD relations with the community.

2.91

19. My district/division commander is a good leader.

3.04

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction.8

1.73

2016 Average
3.20 3.10 3.17 3.22 3.24 3.30 3.25 3.12 3.33 3.32 3.22

2018 Average
3.16 3.08 3.08 3.25 3.27 3.23 3.30 3.22 3.37 3.35 3.10

8

Michael Harrison was the Superintendent of Police at the time of all three biennial

surveys. Shaun Ferguson was sworn in as the City’s new police superintendent on

Friday, January 18, 2019.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 37 of 109 Page 37 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
In 2016, the items in Table 4 were summarized in two scales—one representing perceptions of equality within the NOPD (items 9 through 14) and one representing perceptions of NOPD command staff (items 17 through 19). Changes in these scale scores over time are depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows substantially more positive perceptions of equality within the NOPD from 2014 to 2016 and sustained positive perceptions from 2016 to 2018.
Figure 2. Changes in Perceptions of Equality within NOPD
Figure 3. Changes in Perceptions of NOPD Command Staff
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 38 of 109
Page 38 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Significant positive changes in the perceptions of NOPD command staff were seen from 2014 to 2016, showing consistent improvement into 2018.

3. Personnel and Management Systems

The third section of the survey asks NOPD officers for their perceptions of personnel and management systems (see Table 5). This portion of the survey traditionally has seen the most negative perceptions, with officers not having positive perceptions of complaint investigations or investigations conducted by PIB (NOPD’s internal affairs unit). Still, when examining change over time these items also saw substantial improvement from 2014 to 2016. With the addition of the 2018 data, we see that this change has been sustained. There are a number of items not related to NOPD’s actions related to complaints and evaluations, but to attitudes toward complaints more generally that were stable from 2014 to 2016 (e.g., “Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous.” and “My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints.”). These items remained stable from 2016 to 2018.

Table 5. Avg. Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

2014 Average

2016 Average

2018 Average

22. The performance evaluation system is fair.

2.25

2.71

2.71

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair.

1.85

2.13

2.18

24. The investigations that are conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are fair.

1.86

2.31

2.22

25. If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair.

2.88

3.15

3.21

26. As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action.

3.06

3.32

3.33

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake.

3.20

3.18

3.08

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous.

3.12

3.17

3.12

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 39 of 109
Page 39 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Avg. Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

2014 Average

2016 Average

29. My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints.

2.19

2.18

30. The civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable to the public.

2.41

2.47

2018 Average
2.12
2.48

Once again, based on the comparisons conducted in 2016, scale scores examining two factors—fairness of NOPD discipline9 and cynicism regarding citizen complaints10—were generated using the new data. Changes in the scale score over time are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows a familiar pattern of a substantial improvement in perceptions from 2014 to 2016 and sustained positive perceptions from 2016 to 2018.
Figure 4. Changes in Perceptions of NOPD Discipline

Cynicism toward citizen complaints did not see a change from 2014 to 2016. However, from 2016 to 2018, there was a noticeable downward trend and reduction of cynicism

9

α=0.75.

10

α not estimated because there were too few items.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 40 of 109 Page 40 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
towards citizen complaints suggesting officer perceptions of citizen complaints improved from 2016 to 2018.
Figure 5. Cynicism towards Citizen Complaints

4. Community Police and Police/Community Relations

The fourth section of the survey asked officers about their perceptions of community policing and police-community relations in New Orleans. The pattern of improvement and stability is once again demonstrated across the items in Table 6 with one exceedingly positive and stable exception. The exception is found in item 33: “My interaction with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD.” This item is consistently above the response of “Agree” (3.0) for all three years of the survey.

Table 6. Avg. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Community Relations

2014

2016

2018

Average Average Average

31. Community residents respect police officers in my district. 2.61

2.87

2.85

33. My interactions with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD.

3.38

3.34

3.40

35. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work.

2.61

3.06

2.93

36. Youth programs help reduce crime.

2.77

3.06

2.96

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 41 of 109
Page 41 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Avg. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Community Relations

2014

2016

2018

Average Average Average

42. NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law.

3.07

3.29

3.30

45. Residents in my district trust the NOPD.

2.45

2.80

2.81

46. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services that are provided there.

2.17

2.70

2.72

39. The officers in my district/division treat individuals the

same regardless of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, or other 3.12

3.37

3.40

affiliation.

37. Overall, the NOPD provides services that are [Good]11:

2.20

3.11

3.12

43. Overall, within the New Orleans community, how would

you describe the quality of relationships among differing 2.66

2.95

3.05

racial and ethnic groups?

The changes in the scale score of changes in perceptions of community policing over time are depicted in Figure 6 and show the familiar pattern of substantial improvement and then stability.

11 The responses for this question were not the standard “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Instead, the scale included “Very Bad” to “Very Good.”
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 42 of 109 Page 42 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 6. Changes in Perceptions of Community Policing

5. Expectations about the Police Role

The fifth section of the officer survey asked the officer to indicate how important a number of different duties were to the officer. In 2014, these items were asked on a scale from 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), while in 2016 and 2018 these items were asked on a scale from 1 (Not Important) to 4 (Very Important). To compare the average responses (Table 7), scores from the 2014 survey were converted to a 4-point scale. Table 7 presents officer’s responses regarding expectations of work activities. In 2018, officers considered testifying in court, working with the community to make neighborhoods safer, completing criminal offense reports, and working with juveniles were slightly less important than in previous periods. However, making arrests and issuing traffic tickets were slightly more important.

Table 7. Average Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

How important is each activity to you?

2014 Average

2016 Average

2018 Average

47. Testifying in court

NA

3.61

3.48

48. Handling drunk driving offenders

3.56

3.49

3.42

49. Obtaining statements from witnesses

3.74

3.65

3.66

50. Making arrests

3.28

3.28

3.37

51. Dealing with domestic disputes

3.43

3.37

3.33

52. Working with the community to make

3.66

3.69

3.59

neighborhoods safer

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 43 of 109
Page 43 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Average Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

How important is each activity to you?

2014 Average

2016 Average

2018 Average

53. Responding to calls for service

3.66

3.62

3.59

54. Talking to civilians to help identify problems

3.70

3.59

3.52

55. Dealing with street crime

3.71

3.62

3.60

56. Completing criminal offense reports

3.58

3.62

3.59

57. Conducting foot patrol

2.84

2.82

2.84

58. Providing crime prevention education to the public

3.34

3.34

3.30

59. Working with juveniles

3.40

3.33

3.20

60. Conducting drug raids

3.33

3.07

3.06

61. Maintaining crowd control

3.42

3.32

3.34

62. Stopping and searching suspects

3.20

3.12

3.15

63. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches

3.69

3.65

3.66

64. Patrolling the streets

3.66

3.64

3.61

65. General patrol duties

3.58

3.60

3.56

66. General traffic duties

3.14

3.32

3.30

67. Controlling traffic

3.08

3.15

3.17

68. Issuing traffic tickets

2.78

2.79

2.87

69. Handling neighborhood disputes

3.33

3.27

3.21

70. Controlling crowds at public events

3.49

3.46

3.46

71. Dealing with noisy parties

2.67

2.44

2.47

6. The Police Department and the Public

The final section of the report, reflected in Table 8, examines officer’s perceptions of NOPD advancement opportunities and perceptions of politicians and the media. Officers remained stable in their views of NOPD promotional opportunities with only slight improvements to perceptions of being given a second chance after a mistake and the relationship between hard work and promotions. However, somewhat larger changes were seen in perceptions of politicians and the media. Officers were less likely to believe they could do a better job if politicians did not interfere and more likely to believe that the news media treated officers fairly; both points indicated a positive outlook.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 44 of 109
Page 44 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Average Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

2016 Average12

2018 Average

83. Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job.

3.17

3.17

84. Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on who you know.

3.05

3.09

85. If you make a mistake, NOPD will give you a second chance.

2.39

2.53

86. Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD. 2.64

2.80

87. NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere.

3.25

3.06

88. In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly.

1.98

2.14

89. The media is interested in stories about the NOPD only when an officer gets in trouble.

3.37

3.30

C. DETAINEE SURVEY (2014-2018)
The Monitoring Team surveyed individuals recently detained by the NOPD in 2014, 2016, and 2018 to assess their perceptions of the NOPD. OCDM surveyed 58 detainees in 2014, 73 detainees in 2016, and 69 detainees in 2018. Reports for each individual year have been produced and are available on the OCDM website, however, this repeated survey design allows OCDM to examine trends in detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD over the past 6 years. The items that were consistent across all three surveys demonstrated that:
• Perceptions of the NOPD improved consistently from 2014 to 2016 and from 2016 to 2018.

12 Items were reported using a 4-point scale in 2016 and 2018, but a 5-point scale in 2014.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 45 of 109 Page 45 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• The proportion of respondents indicating that officers explained why the detainee was stopped, treated the detainee fairly, and communicated clearly with the officer varied without a clear trend from 2014 to 2018.
• The percentage of respondents indicating that the officer informed the detainee of his/her rights increased steadily from 2014 to 2016.
• The proportion of respondents indicating that the officer used force against the detainee during the arrest increased from 2016 to 2018. Detainees answered questions related to their most current arrest including: “Did an officer use force to arrest you?”; “Did you physically resist the officer?”, and “Were you hurt when interacting with the officer?” Approximately 15.9% of detainees discussed force used during their arrest (when answering, respondents also may provide narrative explanations of the reported interaction, i.e. tight handcuffs) with two detainee-provided accounts of resisting the officer.
Between 2016 and 2018, a two-year comparison suggests: • Perceptions of the NOPD and attitudes toward the NOPD remained largely consistent between 2016 and 2018. • Detainees were less likely to have negative perceptions of NOPD’s use of force in 2018 as compared to 2016. • Detainees had improved perceptions of fairness in NOPD’s treatment of the Black community and the Latino community, but slightly diminished perceptions of fairness in NOPD’s treatment of the Vietnamese community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community. • Detainees indicated a slight decrease in willingness to cooperate with the NOPD in the future in 2018 compared to 2016.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 46 of 109
Page 46 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographic Comparisons
Gender Male Female

2014 (%)
79.3 19.0

2016 (%)
78.1 15.1

2018 (%)
73.9 23.2

Race White Black Latino Other

12.1

19.2

24.6

69.0

67.1

59.4

3.5

4.1

2.9

13.8

6.9

10.1

New Orleans Resident Yes

79.3

80.8

71.0

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the detainees completing the survey by year. Each year, the gender of detainees remained relatively constant at around 75% male. The proportion of detainees who are white went up from 2014 to 2018, and the number of detainees who identify as black decreased. The fraction of detainees who were New Orleans residents (rather than nonlocal) also decreased in 2018, from nearly 80% down to 71%.

1. Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the NOPD

Ten items examining individuals’ perceptions of the NOPD were included on all three surveys providing perceptions of the NOPD since the implementation of the Consent Decree (Table 2). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Scores in the table (and the other tables presented in this report) represent averages for all detainees in that survey year. Thus, higher scores indicate greater agreement and lower scores indicate less agreement.

Detainees’ perception that NOPD officers do their jobs the right way progressed from 2014 to 2016, and remained stable into 2018. A similar pattern was seen for satisfaction with the way NOPD officers handle themselves and the way NOPD officers treat detainees. Perceptions of NOPD treating detainees with respect, being polite, and listening to them improved consistently from 2014 to 2018. Trust in NOPD officers was relatively constant from 2014 to 2016, but improved in 2018. And, detainees’ confidence in the NOPD and satisfaction with the way NOPD officers do their job diminished somewhat from 2014 to 2016, but improved again in 2018.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 47 of 109
Page 47 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Comparison of Detainees’ Perceptions of the NOPD

2014 Average 2016 Average 2018 Average

1. Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way.

2.64

2.99

2.85

2. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle themselves.

2.60

2.94

2.91

3. When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with respect.

2.69

3.10

3.26

4. When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite.

2.74

2.86

3.19

5. In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the general public.

2.91

2.93

3.12

6. Generally, NOPD officers listen to me.

2.53

2.61

2.93

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me.

2.51

2.71

2.77

8. I trust NOPD officers.1

2.07

2.04

2.23

9. I have confidence in NOPD officers.1

2.42

2.31

2.45

10. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job.1

2.61

2.54

2.63

Scale

2.64

2.89

3.01

1Item not included in scale due to poor measurement fit – items focused on detainees’ attitudes towards

NOPD rather than their perceptions of NOPD.

Questions from 2016 and 2018 surveys were kept consistent. Thus, the Monitoring Team also specifically examined trends between 2016 and 2018. Items in this table and certain others presented throughout this report were on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Perceptions of NOPD officers’ trustworthiness, satisfaction with officers’ behavior, and perceptions that NOPD officers treated the detainee with dignity all remained relatively constant from 2016 to 2018. There was a relative improvement in perception that the NOPD officer treated the detainee with respect and was polite. A slight decline was seen in the belief that officers follow procedures and in the belief that NOPD officers harass people during stops.

Findings from Table 3 suggest perceptions of the NOPD have remained constant from 2016 to 2018. To summarize these findings, the items in Table 2 and Table 3 were placed into an average scale (α=0.90) found at the bottom of the table. Encouragingly, this summary scale score progressed consistently from 2014 to 2016 and through to 2018 (see also Figure 1). While the differences in the scale scores from 2014 to 2016 and from 2016 to 2018 were not statistically significant individually, when examining differences from 2014 through 2018, the difference is significant (t(125)=-2.23, p<0.05).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 48 of 109
Page 48 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Detainees’ Perceptions of NOPD
I feel NOPD officers are trustworthy. I believe police officers follow New Orleans Police Department procedures. I was satisfied with how NOPD officers behave in New Orleans. A NOPD officer would treat me with dignity. A NOPD officer would treat me with respect. An NOPD police officer would be polite when dealing with me. NOPD officers harass people during police stops.1 Scale 1Item not included due to lack of measurement fit (low loading).

2016 Average 1.99
2.31
2.14 2.29 2.31 2.44 2.96 2.25

2018 Average 1.99
2.21
2.16 2.23 2.47 2.58 2.63 2.27

Table 4 presents a series of items on attitudes toward the NOPD. That is, while Table 3 shows how detainees perceive the NOPD (e.g., are they polite), Table 4 shows detainees’ evaluations of the NOPD (e.g., they respect NOPD). These items also were summarized in a mean scale that demonstrated consistency in attitudes toward the NOPD from 2016 to 2018. Detainees indicated a slightly greater level of respect and improved confidence in the NOPD in 2018 than in 2016, but detainees’ trust in the NOPD remained relatively constant from 2016 to 2018. In addition, the perception that NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community decreased slightly in 2018.

Table 4. Detainees’ Attitudes towards the NOPD
I respect the New Orleans Police Department. I trust the New Orleans Police Department. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community. Scale

2016 Average 2.46 2.00 2.13 2.49 2.28

2018 Average 2.54 1.97 2.19 2.40 2.27

2. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities
Table 5 includes detainees’ perceptions of NOPD’s treatment of minorities. The findings showed improved perceptions that the NOPD treats members of the black community and the Latino community fairly. In contrast, detainees had slightly worse perceptions that the NOPD treated members of the Vietnamese and LGBTQ communities fairly. Detainees were also more likely to believe that NOPD officers engage in racial profiling.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 49 of 109
Page 49 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Detainees’ Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities13

New Orleans police officers:

2016 Average

Treat members of the Black community fairly.

1.94

Treat members of the Latino community fairly.

1.95

Treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly.

2.59

Treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community fairly.

2.30

Engage in racial profiling.

3.00

2018 Average 2.13 2.24 2.50
2.19
3.07

3. Perceptions of Arrest and Use of Force

Table 6 presents detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD officer’s behavior during their most recent arrest. The response categories to these items were on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Interestingly, respondents indicated greater agreement that the officer explained the reasons for the stop in 2018, but perceptions that the officer did his or her job declined. From 2016 to 2018, the belief that the officer gave the detainee a chance to explain the situation remained constant.

Table 6. Detainees’ Perceptions of Officer Behavior during Arrest

2016 Average

If I was stopped or questioned by an NOPD officer, the police officer explained the reasons why.

2.31

When dealing with me, the NOPD officer gave me a chance to explain the situation.

2.39

Overall, the NOPD officer did his or her job.

2.75

Scale

2.48

2018 Average 2.56
2.38 2.58 2.51

Table 7 presents yes or no responses to a series of items regarding the respondents’ most recent arrest. The number of detainees indicating the officer explained why they were stopped stayed constant at slightly over 50%, but respondents indicating the officer explained why they were arrested stayed constant at slightly more than 75%. There was a sizable increase, from approximately 80% to approximately 90%, in the percentage of respondents who understood why they were in jail. There was a slight decrease in the portion of respondents who indicated the police treated them fairly, with a slight increase in those who had trouble communicating with an officer. There was a substantial increase
13 2018 Detainee sample demographics: White: 24.6% Black: 59.4% Latino: 2.9% Other: 10.1% Male: 73.9% Female: 23.2% Member of LBGTQ Community: 7.2%.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 50 of 109
Page 50 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

in the overall level of respondents indicating the officer informed them of their rights. A very small proportion of respondents indicated that the officer threatened them physically and used force, though both increased slightly over time. Those that noted he or she physically resisted the officer or were hurt interacting with the officer slightly increased.

Table 7. Detainees’ Perceptions of Arrest
Did the officer(s) explain why you were stopped? Did the officer(s) explain why you were arrested? Do you understand why you are in jail today? Did the police treat you fairly? Did you have any problems communicating with the officer? Did the officer inform you of your rights? Did an officer threaten you physically? Did an officer use force to arrest you? Did you physically resist the officer? Were you hurt when interacting with the officer?

2016 %
57.5 76.7 80.8 72.6 21.9 60.3 1.4 5.5 0.0 6.9

2018 %
53.6 78.3 89.9 65.2 26.1 79.7 5.8 15.9 2.9 10.1

Table 8 items asked detainees for a yes or no answer regarding the specific details of their most recent interaction with an NOPD officer leading to their presence in jail at the time of the survey.14 Slightly more than half of detainees consistently noted the officer explained why they were stopped. The percentage of detainees indicating that the police treated them fairly went up from 2014 to 2016, but dipped slightly in 2018.

Table 8. Detainees’ Perceptions of Arrest
Did the officer(s) explain why you were stopped? Did the police treat you fairly? Did you have any problems communicating with the officer? Did the officer inform you of your rights? Did an officer use force to arrest you? Did you physically resist the officer?

2014 %
51.7 60.3 31.0 32.8
8.6 0.0

2016 % 57.5 72.6 21.9 60.3 5.5 0.0

2018 %
53.6 65.2 26.1 79.7 15.9 2.9

14 Table 8 is a subset of Table 7 with 2014 data added.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 51 of 109
Page 51 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Across all three surveys, approximately one-fourth of detainees responded they had problems communicating with the officer. One of the largest changes was seen for the item asking if the officer informed the community member of his or her rights, and this change trended in a positive direction and was a substantial improvement for the NOPD. In 2014, only one-third of detainees said this was true. In 2016, that number jumped to approximately 60%, and to nearly 80% in 2018. Another notable change was seen in the percentage of detainees indicating that the officer used force during the arrest. Fewer than 10% stated this was true in 2014 and 2016, but 16% said this was true in 2018. In combination with the findings from Table 2 and Figure 1, these findings suggest that NOPD officers have improved detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD while potentially also being perceived as using more force.

Table 9 presents detainees’ perceptions of NOPD use of force from 2016 to 2018. The applicable rating scale is “Strongly Agree” 1, “Agree” 2, “Disagree” 3, or “Strongly Disagree” 4, such that a lower average score of the statement would indicate more negative perceptions. In 2018, approximately more than half (53.6%) of detainees (37 respondents) reported “Strongly Agree” 1 or “Agree” 2 for the statement “NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years.” A slightly smaller proportion, 50.7% reported agreement with the statement that NOPD officers “routinely use excessive force.” Overall, the mean scale score for both items showed similar trend in detainee’s reported negative perceptions of the use of force in the NOPD.

Table 9. Detainees’ Perceptions of NOPD Use of Force
NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years. NOPD officers routinely use excessive force. Scale

2016 Average 2.85 2.69 2.77

2018 Average 2.68 2.67 2.67

4. Future Behavior

The last section of the survey asked detainees for their willingness to report dangerous activity to the NOPD or call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime. Willingness to report dangerous activity remained relatively constant from 2016 to 2018, but willingness to call the NOPD if a witness to a crime diminished slightly from 2016 to 2018.

Table 10. Detainees’ Willingness to Contact NOPD in the Future

2016 Average

I would report dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

2.52

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime.

2.50

2018 Average 2.51 2.33

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 52 of 109
Page 52 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
VII. 2018 Survey Findings
A. COMMUNITY SURVEY (2018)
Whereas the prior sections of this Report illustrated comparison from 2014 to 2016 to 2018, this sections looks at the most recent survey data in a vacuum. The Monitoring Team’s 2018 survey asked 636 community members for their perceptions of the NOPD along a number of dimensions. The surveys were administered in late 2018, and the data were analyzed in 2019. The key findings are summarized as follows:
• Individuals who had contact with the NOPD in the past two years report that the NOPD officer with whom they had contact was trustworthy, followed procedures, treated them with dignity, treated them with respect, and was polite.
• Individuals who were stopped or questioned by the NOPD in the past two years reported that the officer with whom they had contact explained why they were stopped or questioned, gave them a chance to explain the situation, and did his or her job.
• Respondents felt there was more police presence in the French Quarter than other areas.
• Respondents did not believe that NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.
• Respondents reported that NOPD officers are honest, have more integrity than other officers, are fair, are professional, and follow procedures.
• Among the most positive findings, over 80% of respondents indicated they had respect for the NOPD. Furthermore, this positive perception of the NOPD was similar whether the individual had no contact, relatively positive contact, or were stopped or questioned by the police.
• Many respondents indicated a willingness to cooperate with the police across three dimensions – reporting suspicious activity, calling the police when witnessing a crime, and helping the NOPD when asked.
• Some respondents had negative perceptions of NOPD’s treatment of minorities, with high ratings for the belief that the NOPD engages in racial profiling and harassing the black community.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 53 of 109
Page 53 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
1. Community Survey Methodology
Between November 10 and December 6, 2018, the Monitoring Team conducted a survey of community members in New Orleans to determine their perceptions of the NOPD. In total OCDM contacted 1,717 community members receiving 636 valid responses for a response rate of 37.0%.
The original Community Survey used a multi-stage random area sampling process developed by the University of New Orleans to identify areas and households. Each area was divided further into smaller districts and specific houses were identified. The original pool of neighborhoods was sampled from a population of 73 designated “official” neighborhoods, yielding 29 baseline neighborhoods (Appendix A). One adult member of a cooperating household was questioned.
A goal of 20 interviews per area was set to reach a total of 600 interviews. The survey instrument was pre-loaded onto a mobile tablet, so responses could be recorded electronically. Surveyors were outfitted in “uniform” vests that identified them as members of the monitoring team. They also carried a folder that included project information and identification.
Surveyors were recruited from the New Orleans area to develop a diverse team with a welldeveloped capacity to engage local residents. The team of approximately 30 members included field leaders, security personnel, recorders, and surveyors. The team was trained on the survey data collection goals and procedures, the interview protocol, and qualitative structured interview techniques. They were also trained to facilitate an appropriate level of professionalism and privacy for successful and proper data collection.
Each survey team was assigned a housing unit identified on the neighborhood map. After contact with a resident, surveyors solicited voluntary participation. Refusals were recorded and documented. A refusal is defined as contact made with a resident of a housing unit who declined to participate in the survey. In case of refusals, replacement units were selected beginning with the next house of the same block. When permission was granted, the survey interview was conducted at the resident’s home with one surveyor reading all questions and the other recording responses into the mobile tablet, which was securely downloaded daily. In gathering responses, the project manager regularly maintained quality control measures, monitoring shifts’ data collection analytics. A random sample of survey entries was selected after each shift of data collection. For example, manual entry items (such a survey start time, interviewer name and
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 54 of 109
Page 54 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

neighborhood) were compared against automated documentation of these indicators for interviewer data entry error. Inconsistencies were recorded, investigated, or corrected.

2. Demographic Characteristics

Table 1 shows slightly more than half of the respondents were male (53.5%) and a majority indicated they were black (59.9%). 29.3% had earned a college degree, closely followed by respondents who had finished high school (21.4%), and completed some college (22.8%). Slightly fewer than half of the respondents were married (48.1%). Most respondents were born in New Orleans (81.6%) and owned their home (69.5%). A small number of respondents identified as LGBTQ (5.5%). Overall, there is evidence that the sample used to generate these findings is representative of the views of the population of New Orleans (Appendix E).

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Gender Male Female

340

53.5

293

46.1

Race/Ethnicity Black White Asian Hispanic Other

381

59.9

219

34.4

8

1.3

5

0.8

18

2.8

Education

Grade School

9

1.4

Middle School

4

0.6

Some High School

50

7.9

Finished High School

136

21.4

Some College

145

22.8

Finished College Degree

186

29.3

Some Graduate/Professional

14

2.2

Finished Graduate/Professional Degree

86

13.5

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 55 of 109
Page 55 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Marital Status Single Married Divorced Widowed Partnered

233

36.6

306

48.1

45

7.1

20

3.1

26

4.1

Born in New Orleans? Yes No

519

81.6

116

18.2

Own Home? Own Rent

442

69.5

189

29.7

Identify as LGBTQ? Yes No

35

5.5

582

91.5

Previously Completed Survey

14

2.2

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponses were treated as missing.

3. Most Recent Interaction with NOPD

The first section of the survey asked respondents whether they interacted with the NOPD in the last 2 years. Approximately thirty-five percent of respondents answered affirmatively. Those respondents were then asked to answer questions about a recent interaction. These responses are presented in Table 2. A vast majority of these respondents reported satisfaction with NOPD officers. Over two thirds to three-fourths of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with each of the six statements in Table 2 suggesting that, overall, individuals who interacted with the NOPD over the past two years viewed these interactions positively. Individuals reported that the NOPD officer was trustworthy, followed procedures, treated them with dignity, treated them with respect, or was polite. Additionally, respondents were satisfied with how the police officer behaved.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 56 of 109
Page 56 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Satisfaction with NOPD officers during most recent interaction

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

2. When interacting with the police officer, I felt he/she was trustworthy. (M = 2.90)

11 (5.0)

40 (18.1) 127 (57.5) 40 (18.1)

3. I believe the police officer was following

New Orleans Police Department 14 (6.3)

37 (16.7) 122 (55.2) 47 (21.3)

procedures. (M = 2.92)

4. I was satisfied with how the police officer behaved. (M = 2.83)

19 (8.6)

43 (19.5) 114 (51.6) 43 (19.5)

5. The police officer treated me with dignity. (M = 2.90)

14 (6.3)

42 (19.0) 117 (52.9) 47 (21.3)

6. The police officer treated me with respect. (M = 2.86)

16 (7.2)

41 (18.6) 120 (54.3) 43 (19.5)

7. The police officer was polite when dealing with me. (M = 2.88)

16 (7.2)

40 (18.1) 118 (53.4) 46 (20.8)

Note: Percentages are the percentage of respondents who indicated they had contact within the last 2

years that fell within each category. Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as

missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

Table 2 respondents indicated they had an interaction with the police over the past 2 years for any reason such as calling the police for help, approaching the officer on the street, or a number of other reasons such as being a witness to a crime. Table 3 presents responses to a series of questions if the individual was stopped or questioned by the police. In total, 132 respondents (20.8%) stopped or questioned by the police are represented in Table 3.

Responses to many of these items were mostly positive. A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the officer explained the reason why they were stopped or questioned (78.0%), gave them a chance to explain the situation (69.7%), and did his or her job (77.3%). Responses were also mostly positive to items regarding citizens’ satisfaction with how they were treated by the police officer, and satisfaction with their experience with the NOPD officer. However, responses to satisfaction items were slightly less positive than the responses to relatively procedural items.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 57 of 109
Page 57 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3. Satisfaction with NOPD officers when stopped or questioned

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

8. If I was stopped or questioned, the police

officer explained the reasons why. 11 (8.3)

18 (13.6) 94 (71.2)

9 (6.8)

(M = 2.77)

9. When dealing with me, the police officer

gave me a chance to explain the situation. 5 (3.8)

35 (26.5) 78 (59.1) 14 (10.6)

(M = 2.77)

10. Overall, the police officer did his or her job. (M = 2.86)

4 (3.0)

26 (19.7) 87 (65.9) 15 (11.4)

11. I was satisfied with how I was treated by the police officer. (M = 2.62)

13 (9.9)

34 (25.8) 75 (56.8) 10 (7.6)

12. I was satisfied with my experience with the police. (M = 2.58)

13 (9.9)

43 (32.6) 63 (47.7) 13 (9.9)

Note: Percentages are the percentage of respondents who indicated they were stopped or questioned by

the police within the last 2 years that fell within each category. Percentages do not sum to 100 because

nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to each item.

4. Community Satisfaction with the NOPD

While Tables 2 and 3 provide understanding of citizens’ most recent interactions with the police, Table 4 presents data on how community members view the NOPD generally. Responses were given a numerical value based on the respondent’s level of agreement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The mean score on each item can be seen as a measure of the sample’s overall agreement to the item. Therefore, mean values greater than 2.5 indicate agreement, and below 2.5 indicate disagreement; the greater the mean’s distance from 2.5, the stronger the sentiments.

Respondents’ perceptions of corruption in the NOPD were slightly more positive than neutral (M = 2.53). Overall, respondents strongly agreed there was more police presence in the French Quarter compared to other areas of New Orleans (M = 3.51). Respondents were only slightly above neutral to statements that the scandals associated with the NOPD are in the past (M = 2.69), that they were satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job (M = 2.55), and that the NOPD has little impact on crime (M = 2.60). Respondents were relatively more negative to the item, “When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner” (M = 2.10).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 58 of 109
Page 58 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Community satisfaction with NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

19. Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low. (M = 2.53)

67 (10.5) 215 (33.8)

286 (45.0)

54 (8.5)

23. There is more police presence in the French

quarter than in other areas of New Orleans. 10 (1.6) 38 (6.0) 199 (31.3) 377 (59.3)

(M = 3.51)

25. I feel the scandals associated with the New

Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the

19 (3.0)

210 (33.0)

313 (49.2)

63 (9.9)

NOPD. (M = 2.69)

31. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs. (M = 2.55)

65 (10.2) 194 (30.5)

326 (51.3)

41 (6.5)

34. When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner. (M = 2.10)

212 (33.3)

179 (28.1)

185 (29.1)

46 (7.2)

24. Overall, the New Orleans Police

Department has little impact on crime. 39 (6.1) 232 (36.5) 295 (46.4) 58 (9.1)

(M = 2.60)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in

parentheses next to each item.

Table 5 presents the mean scores for each item, organized by whether the individual had no contact, a positive contact, or a negative contact with NOPD. The labels “positive” and “negative” are rough approximations. “Positive contact” category indicated they had an interaction with the NOPD in the past two years, but were not stopped or questioned by the NOPD. The “negative contact” category indicated they had an interaction with the NOPD in the past two years, and also indicated that they were stopped or questioned by the NOPD. The reason for contact or the quality of the interaction may be relevant since it may be expected that contacts would be more positive if the individual called the police for help or had a casual conversation (the positive contact category), than if he or she was stopped or questioned (the negative contact category). Table 5 responses, thus, vary by contact with the NOPD. Respondents who have interacted with the NOPD recently may offer relatively more accurate perceptions of the department than those who have not had recent contact. Nonetheless, given that over half of those who had an interaction with the police were suspected of a violation of the law, these respondents also may have more negative views of the police due to the interaction context.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 59 of 109
Page 59 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Ratings by Contact
19. Corruption in the New Orleans Police Department is low.
23. There is more police presence in the French quarter than in other areas of New Orleans.
25. I feel the scandals associated with the New Orleans Police Department in the past do not reflect the current practices of the NOPD
31. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.
34. When called, NOPD officers respond in a timely manner.
24. Overall, the New Orleans Police Department has little impact on crime.

No Recent Contact 2.59 3.47
2.70
2.59 2.19 2.63

Positive Contact
2.46 3.64
2.80
2.57 2.01 2.53

Negative Contact
2.36 3.57
2.59
2.41 1.91 2.53

Both no contact and positive contact groups had similar levels of satisfaction with the way NOPD officers do their job and the negative contact group had slightly lower levels of satisfaction. Those individuals with no contact had higher levels of agreement with the statement that New Orleans Police Department had little impact on crime while both positive and negative contact groups had similar levels of agreement.

5. Community Perceptions of Change in the NOPD

The next set of items on the community survey asked individuals for their perceptions of change in the NOPD. Once again, responses to these items were placed on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Sentiments were slightly above the mean regarding improvements in policing (M = 2.66), becoming a better police department (M = 2.65), negative publicity making NOPD’s job more difficult (M = 2.63), and cellphone recording making NOPD officers more apprehensive to use force (M = 2.69). Respondents also expressed relatively neutral attitudes on if neighbors have more confidence in police (M = 2.48), community members are more willing to resist NOPD officers (M = 2.53), fewer NOPD officers are present in the community (M = 2.57), increases in the use of force (M = 2.55), and the likelihood of NOPD using excessive force (M = 2.44).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 60 of 109
Page 60 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Community perceptions of change in the NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

13. There have been improvements in policing

in New Orleans over the past two years. 39 (6.1) 179 (28.1) 361 (56.8) 44 (6.9)

(M = 2.66)

26. In the past two years, the NOPD has become a better police department. (M = 2.65)

54 (8.5)

155 (24.4) 358 (56.3)

49 (7.7)

40. When compared to 2 years ago, my

neighbors have more confidence in the 86 (13.5) 184 (28.9) 280 (44.0) 45 (7.1)

NOPD. (M = 2.48)

45. Over the past 2 years, community members

have become more willing to resist NOPD 33 (5.2) 264 (41.5) 265 (41.7) 44 (6.9)

officers. (M = 2.53)

46a. I have noticed fewer NOPD officers in my

community over the past two years. 64 (10.1) 206 (32.4) 267 (42.0) 72 (11.3)

(M = 2.57)

46. Negative publicity surrounding policing

lately has made NOPD officers’ jobs more 48 (7.6) 206 (32.4) 303 (47.6) 68 (10.7)

difficult. (M = 2.63)

47. Audio and video recordings of NOPD have made their jobs more difficult. (M = 2.35)

89 (14.0) 269 (42.3) 221 (34.8)

44 (6.9)

48. Cell phone or video recording of NOPD

officers has caused officers to be more 34 (5.4) 209 (32.9) 291 (45.8) 86 (13.5)

apprehensive to use force. (M = 2.69)

49. NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years. (M = 2.55)

34 (5.4)

263 (41.4) 260 (40.9)

56 (8.8)

50. Compared to two years ago, today NOPD

are less likely to use excessive force. 78 (12.3) 222 (34.9) 278 (43.7) 34 (5.4)

(M = 2.44)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in

parentheses next to each item.

Table 7 shows average ratings vary based upon the context for which the respondent may have interacted with an NOPD officer:

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 61 of 109
Page 61 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Mean Ratings by Contact

No Contact

13. There have been improvements in policing in New Orleans over the past two years.

2.72

26. In the past two years, the NOPD has become a better police department.

2.71

40. When compared to 2 years ago, my neighbors have more confidence in the NOPD.

2.54

45. Over the past 2 years, community members have become more willing to resist NOPD officers.

2.55

46a. I have noticed fewer NOPD officers in my community over the past two years.

2.57

46. Negative publicity surrounding policing lately has made NOPD officers’ jobs more difficult.

2.63

47. Audio and video recordings of NOPD have made their jobs more difficult.

2.38

48. Cell phone or video recording of NOPD officers has caused officers to be more apprehensive to use force.

2.70

49. NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years.

2.58

50. Compared to two years ago, today NOPD are less likely to use excessive force.

2.45

Positive Contact
2.68 2.66 2.44 2.44 2.47 2.68 2.18 2.70 2.36 2.44

Negative Contact
2.45 2.47 2.33 2.50 2.64 2.57 2.39 2.65 2.58 2.40

6. Community Perceptions of NOPD Procedural Justice and Trustworthiness

The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing emphasized the need for police departments to improve relationships with the community by building legitimacy through the use of procedurally fair policing. Table 8 presents the findings from a number of items that asked community members about their perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness. Overall, perceptions of NOPD’s fairness and trustworthiness were positive. A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that NOPD officers are honest (61.6%), have more integrity than other officers (55.1%), are fair (63.9%), are professional (67.8%), and follow procedures (65.7%). Similarly, a majority of respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that they expected NOPD officers to treat them fairly (77.9%) and that NOPD officers treat victims of crime well (59.6%). There was a slightly higher mean on items regarding trust in the NOPD (M = 2.57), that the NOPD tries to be fair (M = 2.70), and confidence in the NOPD (M = 2.58). Importantly, the most positive responses were seen for the item “I respect the NOPD” with large majority of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing (81.3%), indicating a considerable amount of respect for the NOPD among community members.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 62 of 109
Page 62 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

However, when considering if NOPD officers are racist or biased against minorities (50.5%), that you should accept NOPD decisions because it is the proper thing to do (51.7%), and that the NOPD provides the same quality of service to all community members (56.1%), respondents were relatively split on whether they generally agreed or disagreed with these statements.

Table 8. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

14. Police officers in New Orleans are honest. (M = 2.61)

43 (6.8)

194 (30.5) 360 (56.6)

15. Compared to other places, NOPD officers have more integrity. (M = 2.54)

43 (6.8)

228 (35.9) 319 (50.2)

16. Police officers in New Orleans are fair. (M = 2.62)

42 (6.6)

183 (28.8) 377 (59.3)

17. Police officers in New Orleans are professional. (M = 2.67)

44 (6.9)

155 (24.4) 396 (62.3)

18. While conducting their duties, officers follow NOPD procedures. (M = 2.65)

46 (7.2)

160 (25.2) 386 (60.7)

20. Police officers in New Orleans are not racist or biased against minorities. (M = 2.43)

68 (10.7)

253 (39.8) 260 (40.9)

21. I expect the New Orleans police officers will treat me fairly. (M = 2.89)

32 (5.0)

102 (16.0) 396 (62.3)

22. New Orleans police officers treat victims of crime well. (M = 2.61)

38 (6.0)

202 (31.8) 343 (53.9)

30. I trust the NOPD. (M = 2.57)

84 (13.2) 160 (25.2) 327 (51.4)

32. I respect the NOPD. (M = 3.00)
33. The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community. (M = 2.70)
41. The NOPD police act in ways that are consistent with my own moral values. (M = 2.51)
42. You should accept NOPD police decisions because that is the proper thing to do. (M = 2.38)

28 (4.4) 43 (6.8) 69 (10.9)
98 (15.4)

84 (13.2) 153 (24.1)

377 (59.3) 381 (59.9)

207 (32.6) 292 (45.9)

231 (36.3) 248 (39.0)

Strongly Agree N (%) 32 (5.0) 31 (4.9) 29 (4.6) 35 (5.5) 32 (5.0) 38 (6.0) 99 (15.6) 36 (5.7) 56 (8.8)
140 (22.0) 49 (7.7)
46 (7.2)
44 (6.9)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 63 of 109
Page 63 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Citizens’ perceptions of NOPD procedural justice and trustworthiness

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

43. The NOPD police provide the same quality

of service to all community members. 96 (15.1) 261 (41.0) 227 (35.7) 37 (5.8)

(M = 2.33)

44. I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. (M = 2.58)

70 (11.0)

169 (26.6) 340 (53.5)

47 (7.4)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in

parentheses next to each item.

7. Willingness to Cooperate with the NOPD

Table 9 presents willingness to cooperate with the NOPD. Overall, ratings were positive across these items, with a majority of respondents indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed that they would report dangerous or suspicious activity (77.2%), that they would call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime (78.9%), and that they would help the NOPD if asked (66.4%). Thus, the large majority of respondents would cooperate with the police when necessary.

Table 9. Mean Ratings of Cooperation by Contact

No Contact

36. I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD.

3.02

37. I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime.

3.01

39. If asked, I would help the NOPD find someone suspected of committing a crime.

2.84

Positive Contact
3.16
3.20
3.05

Negative Contact
2.84
2.86
2.62

For individuals indicating that they disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would call the police if they witnessed a crime, the survey asked why the respondent would not cooperate with the authorities (see Table 10). The most common reason for not calling the police was that individuals did not want to get involved (56.4%), however, a notable report of respondents also indicated that they would not call the NOPD because they did not trust them (17.3%).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 64 of 109
Page 64 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 10. Reasons for not calling NOPD

N

%

I do not trust the NOPD.

23

17.3

I do not want to be seen cooperating with NOPD.

8

6.0

I would fear consequences from the NOPD.

12

9.0

I simply wouldn’t want to get involved.

75

56.4

I would cooperate anonymously, for example, through Crime Stoppers.

13

9.8

Note: Percentages reflect the percentage of respondents that indicated they would not call the NOPD if

they witnessed or became aware of a crime.

Table 9 further breaks down the responses to willingness to cooperate by the type of contact individuals had with the police over the past two years. Remember that some of the reasons for being placed in the positive contact category involved individuals voluntarily contacting NOPD officers – a type of behavior that is being asked about with these items. Thus, those individuals who had positive contact with the police had the highest ratings across all three items.

Also, unsurprisingly, individuals who were stopped or questioned and previously experienced negative contact with NOPD had the lowest ratings across Table 11 items.

8. Citizens’ Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities

Table 11 examines perceptions of NOPD treatment of minorities and other groups. Many respondents indicated they had no specific opinion of the treatment of certain groups. For example, 61.8% of respondents indicated no opinion to an item regarding confidence in the NOPD by the LGBTQ community. Overall, responses to these items were relatively negative. The means for fair treatment included: the Black community (M = 2.33), Latino community (M = 2.38), Vietnamese community (M = 2.70) and LGBTQ community (M = 2.57). However, respondents agreed that NOPD officers engage in racial profiling (M = 2.86) and that members of the Latino community don’t report crime for fear of deportation (M = 3.13). Additionally, respondents believed that members of the Black community expect to be harassed (M = 3.11) and do not believe the NOPD is credible (M = 2.96). Other items regarding treatment of the homeless and confidence in the NOPD by members of LGBTQ community had relatively neutral responses (M = 2.45 and M = 2.58, respectively).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 65 of 109
Page 65 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 11. Citizens’ perceptions of how NOPD officers treat minorities and other groups15

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly No Agree Opinion

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

51. New Orleans police officers treat members of 119

the Black community fairly. (M = 2.33)

(18.7)

166 (26.1)

194 (30.5)

51

106

(8.0) (16.7)

52. New Orleans police officers treat members of

60

117

133

27

299

the Latino community fairly. (M = 2.38)

(9.4) (18.4) (20.9) (4.3) (47.0)

53. New Orleans police officers treat members of

27

76

135

45

353

the Vietnamese community fairly. (M = 2.70)

(4.3) (12.0) (21.2) (7.1) (55.5)

54. New Orleans police officers treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community fairly. (M = 2.57)

39

76

134

(6.1) (12.0) (21.1)

33

354

(5.2) (55.7)

55. New Orleans police officers engage in racial profiling. (M = 2.86)

36

97

245

102

(5.7) (15.3) (38.5) (16.0)

156 (24.5)

56. The NOPD has officers capable of communicating with Spanish-speaking victims. (M = 2.80)

17 (2.7)

54

205

(8.5) (32.2)

28

332

(4.4) (52.2)

57. Members of the New Orleans Latino community don’t report crimes to NOPD due to fear of deportation. (M = 3.13)

11 (1.7)

40

176

104

305

(6.3) (27.7) (16.4) (48.0)

58. Members of the Black community expect to

20

80

220

175

141

be harassed by the NOPD. (M = 3.11)

(3.1) (12.6) (34.6) (27.5) (22.2)

59. Members of the Black community do not believe the NOPD is credible. (M = 2.96)

18

96

245

115

(2.8) (15.1) (38.5) (18.1)

162 (25.5)

60. Body worn cameras reduce the likelihood of improper use of force towards minorities by NOPD. (M = 2.74)

53

124

266

93

(8.3) (19.5) (41.8) (14.6)

100 (15.7)

61. Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community do not have confidence in the NOPD. (M = 2.45)

34

87

100

(5.4) (13.7) (15.7)

22

393

(3.5) (61.8)

62. During encounters with the NOPD, police

42

133

160

53

248

treat the homeless poorly. (M = 2.58)

(6.6) (20.9) (25.2) (8.3) (39.0)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in

parentheses next to each item. To compute mean scores, no opinion is treated as missing.

15 2018 Community sample demographics: White: 34.4% Black: 59.9% Asian: 1.3% Latino: 0.8% Other: 2.8% Male: 53.5% Female: 46.1% Member of LBGTQ Community: 5.5%.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 66 of 109
Page 66 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

9. Citizens’ Views of the NOPD and Immigration

The final section of the survey asked survey respondents for their view of the NOPD and immigration (Table 12). Once again, a specific “No Opinion” option was given for these items. Responses to this section were largely neutral with the statistical means for each of the items around the mid-point of the scale.

Table 12. Citizens’ views of the NOPD and immigration

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly No Agree Opinion

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

63. NOPD officers ask for immigration 27

80

87

22

420

identification papers. (M = 2.48)

(4.3) (12.6) (13.7) (3.5) (66.0)

64. New Orleans police officers question Latinos about their immigration status. (M = 2.65)

21 (3.3)

53

107

23

(8.3) (16.8) (3.6)

432 (67.9)

65. New Orleans police officers refer Latinos to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (M = 2.54)

31 (4.9)

51

92

22

(8.0) (14.5) (3.5)

440 (69.2)

Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in

parentheses next to each item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 67 of 109 Page 67 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. OFFICER SURVEY (2018)
In the Fall of 2018 (October 24 – November 16), the Monitoring Team conducted its third biennial survey of NOPD officers. The survey asked about their perceptions of the NOPD, police-community relations, and various NOPD programs. 440 surveys were distributed and 402 surveys were returned for a response rate of 91.3%. The major findings of the survey are summarized below:
• Officers had very positive perceptions of their working environment.
• Officers most commonly indicated that they joined the NOPD to help the community become a safer place and to help people.
• Officers rated their managers and supervisors positively, including the Superintendent of Police.
• Officers were less positive about personnel and management systems such as the investigation of civilian complaints and investigations by the Public Integrity Bureau.
• Officers had positive perceptions of relations between the NOPD and the community, indicating that this has remained stable from two years ago.
• Officers indicated obtaining statements from witnesses, dealing with street crime, the legality/constitutionality of stops and searches, and patrolling the streets as the most important activities they are asked to do.
• Officers indicated conducting foot patrol, issuing traffic tickets, and dealing with noisy parties as the least important activities they are asked to do.
• Officers receiving EPIC peer intervention training had positive perceptions of the program indicating that it was helpful, useful, and gave them confidence to conduct a peer intervention.
• Officers receiving EPIC peer intervention training were more likely to indicate that they had taken action to intervene when a peer officer was engaging in problematic behavior.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 68 of 109
Page 68 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

1. Officer Survey Methodology

Between October 24 and November 16, 2018, the Monitoring Team distributed surveys to 440 New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) officers. The NOPD Compliance Bureau administered the survey to NOPD division leaders who managed the distribution of the survey. Each survey was provided to the officer in a sealable envelope to protect the anonymity of any respondent. Officers were informed that completion of the survey was voluntary and anonymous. During the police officer surveying period, the Monitoring Team retrieved all distributed and collected surveys from NOPD on a scheduled basis.

2. Demographic Characteristics

As of April 2019, the NOPD has 77% male and 23% female active officers. Forty percent of NOPD officers are white, 54% are black, 4% are Latino, and 2% noted Other. Considering rank of NOPD officers overall, 68% are officers, 9% are detectives, 17% are sergeants, 5% are lieutenants or captains and 2% are commanders. The mean age of NOPD sworn personnel is 42 and the mean years of experience is 15. The demographics of the responding NOPD officers are presented in Table 1. Four hundred and two (402) officers participated in the survey; a response rate of 91.3%. About half of the respondents indicated that they were patrol officers (50.3%). While some officers did not complete demographic prompts, a large number of respondents indicated that they were male (54.7%). For race, similar proportions of respondents indicated that they were white (24.4%) or black (27.6%). Approximately 42% of respondents reside in the City of New Orleans. The average age of respondents ~41.2 years old or less, and the average years of experience with NOPD was 12.8 years.

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

Gender

Male

149

53.0

Female

58

20.6

Race White Black Latino/Hispanic Other

66

23.5

100

35.6

6

2.1

21

0.7

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 69 of 109
Page 69 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 1. Demographics

N

%

New Orleans Resident

Yes

142

50.5

No

92

32.7

Rank Police Officer Detective Sergeant Lieutenant/Captain Commander/Other

140

49.8

28

10.0

44

15.7

14

5.0

1

0.4

Age

Mean=41.2 years old

Years of Experience

Mean=12.8 years

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

3. Your Working Environment

Table 2 presents respondents’ evaluations of their working environment at the NOPD. Respondents were provided with a number of statements for which they were asked to indicate their level of agreement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The table presents two forms of information. The first is the M, or the mean item score, found in the left most column following the statement. This measure provides an overall look at the level of agreement (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) across all responding officers. The second information provided in the table is the distribution of responses, found in the four right-side columns, as an N population and percentage of overall responses.

Officers reported positive perceptions of their working environment on the first five items. For example, “Civilians in my district treat me with respect,” “In my district, my fellow officers treat me with respect,” “In my district, my supervisors treat me with respect,” “My district/division provides a quality work environment,” and “I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively” all reported means clustered around the score for “Agree” or better (3.0 or higher). For these items, the large number of respondents responded with “Agree” or “Strongly Agree.” Other items, such as Item 6, “I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively,” were relatively more neutral in the Mean or overall N. When considering the quality of relationships within NOPD among ethnic and racial groups, a majority (84.1%) of officers indicated these relationships were either Good or Very Good.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 70 of 109
Page 70 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Responses to Section I: “Your Working Environment”

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

1. Civilians in my district treat me with respect. (M = 2.97)

12 (3.0)

59 (14.7)

Agree N (%) 226 (56.2)

Strongly Agree N (%)
71 (17.7)

2. In my district, my fellow officers treat me with respect. (M = 3.50)

3 (0.8)

5 (1.2) 166 (41.3) 194 (48.3)

3. In my district, my supervisors treat me with respect. (M = 3.41)

4 (1.0)

25 (6.2) 154 (38.3) 186 (46.3)

4. My district/division provides a quality work environment. (M = 3.13)

13 (3.2)

50 (12.4) 187 (46.5) 124 (30.9)

5. I receive training from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. (M = 3.01)

16 (4.0)

54 (13.4) 222 (55.2) 88 (21.9)

6. I receive equipment from NOPD that helps me do my job effectively. 58 (14.4) (M = 2.54)

109 (27.1) 155 (38.6)

52 (12.9)

Very Bad

Bad

Good Very Good

8. Overall, within the NOPD, how would

you describe the quality of relationships among differing racial and ethnic

7 (1.7)

34 (8.5) 250 (62.2) 88 (21.9)

groups? (M = 3.11)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score

is in parentheses next to the item.

Officers were also asked to select reasons why they joined the NOPD from a number of listed options (see Table 3). Most commonly, officers indicated they joined the community because they wanted to help the community “become a safer place” and wanted to “help people” (each 69.4% of respondents). About half of respondents also indicated they joined the NOPD to “fight crime” (50.0%). Other respondents indicated they joined the NOPD because it was “exciting” (39.1%), provided “valuable career opportunities” (40.6%) or “job security” (39.6%). A third of officers noted joining NOPD because it was a good paying

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 71 of 109
Page 71 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

job (31.3%). Smaller numbers joined because they wanted to work details, family tradition or reason not listed.

Table 3. Reasons to Join the NOPD It is a good paying job.

N 126

% 31.3

It is exciting.

157

39.1

I want to help the community become a safer place.

279

69.4

I want to fight crime.

201

50.0

It provides valuable career opportunities.

163

40.6

It provides job security.

159

39.6

I want to help people.

279

69.4

I want to work details.

37

9.2

It is a tradition in my family.

34

8.5

Other

16

4.0

Note: Percentages represent the percentage of all survey respondents (281) that indicated they

joined the NOPD for a particular reason.

4. Managers and Supervisors

The second section of the survey asked officers for perceptions of their NOPD managers and supervisors. Nearly every item yielded largely positive perceptions of managers and supervisors, with means above 3.0 (or a score of “Agree”). The majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that officers in their district treat other officers the same regardless of gender (80.6%), race/ethnicity (75.2%), or sexual orientation (83.1%). Table 4 displays that a large majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that supervisors in their district treat officers the same regardless of gender (77.6%), race/ethnicity (75.2%), or sexual orientation (81.1%). With respect to their immediate supervisor, most officers agreed or strongly agreed that they received regular feedback (80.8%) and consistently worked with the same supervisor (85.4%). In considering their district/division commander, a majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that the commander is open to new ideas (74.4%),

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 72 of 109
Page 72 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

tries to improve NOPD relations with the community (81.8%), and is a good leader (78.8%). Nearly three quarters of the officers Agreed or Strongly Agreed that the thencurrent Superintendent of Police (Michael Harrison) was leading the NOPD in the right direction (73.6%).

Table 4. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

9. Officers in my district treat other

officers of differing genders the same. 11 (2.7) 30 (7.5)

(M = 3.21)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

194 (48.3) 130 (32.3)

10. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing genders the same. (M = 3.16)

16 (4.0)

38 (9.5) 183 (45.5) 129 (32.1)

11. Within NOPD officers treat other officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M = 3.08)

11 (2.7)

12. Within NOPD supervisors treat officers of differing race/ethnicity the same. (M = 3.08)

11 (2.7)

13. Officers in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientations the same. (M = 3.25)

9 (2.2)

56 (13.9) 194 (48.3) 108 (26.9) 56 (13.9) 194 (48.3) 108 (26.9) 21 (5.2) 205 (51.0) 129 (32.1)

14. Supervisors in my district treat officers of differing sexual orientation the same. (M = 3.27)

8 (2.0)

15. My immediate supervisor gives me regular feedback on the quality of my work. (M = 3.23)

11 (2.7)

16. I consistently work with the same supervisor. (M = 3.29)

6 (1.5)

17. My district/division commander is open to new ideas and ways of thinking. (M = 3.22)

13 (3.2)

27 (6.7) 186 (46.3) 140 (34.8) 39 (9.7) 179 (44.5) 146 (36.3) 29 (7.2) 190 (47.3) 153 (38.1) 45 (11.2) 149 (37.1) 150 (37.3)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 73 of 109
Page 73 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Responses to Section II: Managers and Supervisors

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

18. My district/division commander is trying to improve NOPD relations with the community. (M = 3.37)

8 (2.0)

20 (5.0) 162 (40.3) 167 (41.5)

19. My district/division commander is a good leader. (M = 3.35)

9 (2.2)

29 (7.2) 144 (35.8) 173 (43.0)

20. The current Superintendent of Police is leading us in the right direction. 16 (4.0) 48 (11.9) 179 (44.5) 117 (29.1) (M = 3.10)
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

5. Personnel and Management Systems

In the third section of the survey, officers indicated their level of agreement to a series of items regarding NOPD personnel and management systems on the same four-point scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree; see Table 5). Perceptions of NOPD training during the academy were relatively neutral (M = 2.59), though the most common response category was “Agree” (40.1%). Perceptions of field training were slightly more positive (M = 2.76). A majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that the performance evaluation system is fair (61.5%).

Officers were neutral on whether the civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable with a relatively similar proportion of officers indicating they agreed or strongly agreed (48.6%) as disagreed or strongly disagreed (42.1%). The last three questions in the section asked for officer’s perceptions of civilian complaints. A majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the investigation of civilian complaints is fair (57.9%). A majority of officers (71.9%) agreed with the statement that most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous (M = 3.12). Officers disagreed that their career has been negatively affected by civilian complaints (M = 2.12). Similarly, a majority of officers disagreed or strongly disagreed that investigations by PIB are fair (53.5%). A large majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that they understood what behavior would result in disciplinary action (85.3%). Additionally, a majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that commanders would discipline them fairly if needed (81.6%). However, a

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 74 of 109
Page 74 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

majority of officers indicated that they were afraid they would be punished for making an honest mistake (68.5%).

Table 5. Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

21a. Today, NOPD trains newly hired officers well during Academy. (M = 2.59)

34 (8.5)

123 (30.6) 161 (40.1)

Strongly Agree N (%)
42 (10.5)

21b. Today, NOPD trains newly hired officers well during field training. (M = 2.76)

20 (5.0)

94 (23.4) 198 (49.3) 49 (12.2)

22. The performance evaluation system is fair. (M = 2.71)

33 (8.2)

82 (20.4) 204 (50.8) 43 (10.7)

23. The investigation of civilian complaints is fair. (M = 2.18)

91 (22.6)

142 (35.3)

96 (23.9)

29 (7.2)

24. The investigations that are conducted by NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) are 90 (22.4) fair. (M = 2.22)

125 (31.1) 121 (30.1)

24 (6.0)

25. If disciplined, my commander would discipline me in a way that is fair. (M = 3.21)

11 (2.7)

22 (5.5) 209 (52.0) 119 (29.6)

26. As an officer, I understand what types of behavior will result in disciplinary action. (M = 3.33)

6 (1.5)

20 (5.0) 191 (47.5) 152 (37.8)

27. I am afraid I will be punished for making an honest mistake. (M = 3.08)

22 (5.5)

73 (18.2) 128 (31.9) 147 (36.6)

28. Most civilian complaints against officers are frivolous. (M = 3.12)

9 (2.2)

64 (15.9) 162 (40.3) 127 (31.6)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 75 of 109
Page 75 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Responses to Section III: Personnel and Management Systems

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

29. My career has been affected negatively by civilian complaints. (M = 2.12)

92 (22.9)

167 (41.5)

70 (17.4)

Strongly Agree N (%)
33 (8.2)

30. The civilian complaint system makes the NOPD more accountable to the public. 53 (13.2) 116 (28.9) 161 (40.1) 34 (8.5) (M = 2.48) Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item

6. Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

The fourth section of the survey considered officers’ perceptions of community policing and police-community relations in New Orleans, presented in Table 6. A majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed that NOPD is a better organization than two years ago (65.9%). An even larger majority of officers felt that the NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights (86.3%). Additionally, a majority of officers felt that residents in their district trust the NOPD (68.2%) and that if they lived in their district that they would be satisfied with the police services provided (62.2%).

Overall, officers agreed that community residents respect police officers in their district (M = 2.85) and that the NOPD receives more support from the community than two years ago (M = 2.83). An overwhelming majority of officers agreed or strongly agreed (85.6%) that their interactions influence the way the community perceives NOPD. Generally, officers agreed that law enforcement strategies in their district positively impacted community relations (M = 3.12). Similarly, officers agreed that youth programs improve community relations (M = 2.93) and reduce crime (M = 2.96).

Officers also rated the overall quality of NOPD services, and relationships between racial and ethnic groups within the New Orleans community. Figure 1 presents officers perceptions of NOPD officers’ treatment of individuals on the basis of race or ethnicity. Most commonly, officers believed NOPD officers “Always” treated individuals the same regardless of race or ethnicity. Overall, officers felt that the NOPD provided services that were good (M = 3.12). Additionally, officers indicated that relationships between racial and ethnic groups in the New Orleans community were also good (M = 3.05).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 76 of 109
Page 76 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

31. Community residents respect police officers in my district. (M = 2.85)

15 (3.7)

70 (17.4) 231 (57.5) 47 (11.7)

32. Generally, NOPD receives more support from the community than two years ago. (M = 2.83)

11 (2.7)

81 (20.2) 207 (51.5) 46 (11.4)

33. My interactions with civilians influence the way the community perceives NOPD. (M = 3.40)

1 (0.3)

14 (3.5) 183 (45.5) 161 (40.1)

34. Law enforcement strategies in my district positively impact relations with the community. (M = 3.12)

7 (1.7)

33 (8.2) 218 (54.2) 90 (22.4)

35. Youth programs improve relations between the NOPD and the community where I work. (M = 2.93)

30 (7.5)

53 (13.2) 172 (42.8) 89 (22.1)

36. Youth programs help reduce crime. (M = 2.96)

33 (8.2)

55 (13.7) 144 (35.8) 107 (26.6)

38. Today, the NOPD is a better organization than it was two years ago. (M = 2.92)

19 (4.7)

42. NOPD brings offenders to justice while respecting their rights and complying with the law. (M = 3.30)

3 (0.8)

63 (15.7) 193 (48.0) 72 (17.9) 21 (5.2) 208 (51.7) 139 (34.6)

45. Residents in my district trust the NOPD. (M = 2.81)

10 (2.5)

73 (18.2) 248 (61.7) 26 (6.5)

46. If I lived in my district I would be satisfied with the police services that are provided there. (M = 2.72)

37 (9.2)

74 (18.4) 204 (50.8) 46 (11.4)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 77 of 109
Page 77 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Responses to Section IV: Community Policing and Police/Community Relations

Very Bad

Bad

Good Very Good

37. Overall, the NOPD provides services that are: (M = 3.12)

7 (1.7)

22 (5.5) 259 (64.4) 80 (19.9)

43. Overall, within the New Orleans community, how would you describe the quality of relationships among differing racial and ethnic groups? (M = 3.05)

5 (1.2)

43 (10.7) 239 (59.5) 72 (17.9)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Figure 1. NOPD Officers Treatment based on Race/Ethnicity

Table 7 shows officers’ rating of police-community relations where they work on a scale from 1 (Very Negative) to 5 (Very Positive). A large proportion of respondents indicated that they believed police-community relations were positive (59.2%). When comparing police-community-relations over the past two years to relations today on a scale from 1 (Much Worse) to 5 (Much Better), similar proportions of officers indicated that relations were about the same (34.8%) or better (34.1%).
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 78 of 109
Page 78 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 7. Officer Ratings of Community Relations

Very Negative

Negative

Neither

Positive

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Today, relations between the NOPD police and the community where I work are: 8 (2.0) (M = 3.91)

28 (7.0) 3 (0.8)

238 (59.2)

Much Worse

Worse

About the Same

Better

Compared to two years ago, the relations between the NOPD and the community 2 (0.5) where I work are: (M = 3.67)

14 (3.5)

140 (34.8)

137 (34.1)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The

mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

Very Positive N (%)
52 (12.9)
Much Better
58 (14.4)

7. Expectations about the Police Role

The fifth section of the survey asked officers for their expectations about the police role as shown in Table 8. Officers were asked to rate how important 25 policing activities were on a scale from 1 (Not Important) to 4 (Very Important). Items receiving the strongest positive responses included roles such as obtaining statements from witnesses (M = 3.66), dealing with street crime (M = 3.60), the legality/constitutionality of stops and searches (M = 3.66), and patrolling the streets (M = 3.61). In contrast, activities receiving the most negative responses were conducting foot patrol, issuing traffic tickets, and dealing with noisy parties.

Table 8. Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not

Not So

Important Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

47. Testifying in court (M = 3.48)

6 (1.5)

33 (8.2)

Important
N (%) 110 (27.4)

Very Important
N (%) 227 (56.5)

48. Handling drunk driving offenders (M = 3.42)

4 (1.0)

23 (5.7) 161 (40.1) 190 (47.3)

49. Obtaining statements from witnesses (M = 3.66)

1 (0.3)

3 (0.8) 121 (30.1) 253 (62.9)

50. Making arrests (M = 3.37)

2 (0.5)

36 (9.0) 162 (40.3) 179 (44.5)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 79 of 109
Page 79 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not

Not So

Important Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

51. Dealing with domestic disputes (M = 3.33)

4 (1.0)

44 (11.0)

Important N (%)
147 (36.6)

Very Important
N (%)
175 (43.5)

52. Working with the community to make neighborhoods safer (M = 3.59)

3 (0.8)

12 (3.0) 123 (30.6) 240 (59.7)

53. Responding to calls for service (M = 3.59)

2 (0.5)

6 (1.5) 136 (33.8) 233 (58.0)

54. Talking to civilians to help identify problems (M = 3.52)

2 (0.5)

18 (4.5) 139 (34.6) 217 (54.0)

55. Dealing with street crime (M = 3.60)

4 (1.0)

9 (2.2) 121 (30.1) 243 (60.5)

56. Completing criminal offense reports (M = 3.59)

1 (0.3)

5 (1.2) 136 (33.8) 224 (55.7)

57. Conducting foot patrol (M = 2.84)

23 (5.7) 105 (26.1) 144 (35.8) 94 (23.4)

58. Providing crime prevention education to the public (M = 3.30)

4 (1.0)

37 (9.2) 169 (42.0) 156 (38.8)

59. Working with juveniles (M = 3.20)

11 (2.7) 51 (12.7) 156 (38.8) 148 (36.8)

60. Conducting drug raids (M = 3.06)

11 (2.7) 76 (18.9) 158 (39.3) 120 (29.9)

61. Maintaining crowd control (M = 3.34) 5 (1.2)

31 (7.7) 163 (40.6) 166 (41.3)

62. Stopping and searching suspects (M = 3.15)

6 (1.5)

60 (14.9) 169 (42.0) 128 (31.8)

63. The legality/constitutionality of stops and searches (M = 3.66)

3 (0.8)

4 (1.0) 104 (25.9) 250 (62.2)

64. Patrolling the streets (M = 3.61)

1 (0.3)

2 (0.5) 137 (34.1) 225 (56.0)

65. General patrol duties (M = 3.56)

1 (0.3)

2 (0.5) 153 (38.1) 209 (52.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 80 of 109
Page 80 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Responses to Section V: Expectations about the Police Role

Not

Not So

Important Important

How important is each activity to you?

N (%)

N (%)

66. General traffic duties (M = 3.30)

2 (0.5)

42 (10.5)

Important
N (%) 167 (41.5)

Very Important
N (%) 154 (38.3)

67. Controlling traffic (M = 3.17)

4 (1.0)

58 (14.4) 177 (44.0) 127 (31.6)

68. Issuing traffic tickets (M = 2.87)

13 (3.2) 114 (28.4) 147 (36.6) 91 (22.6)

69. Handling (M = 3.21)

neighborhood

disputes

6 (1.5)

50 (12.4) 170 (42.3) 138 (34.3)

70. Controlling crowds at public events (M = 3.46)

5 (1.2)

22 (5.5) 137 (34.1) 200 (49.8)

71. Dealing with noisy parties (M = 2.47) 46 (11.4) 159 (39.6) 101 (25.1) 59 (14.7) Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

8. The Police Department and the Public

The next section of the survey contains a number of items regarding police officers’ perceptions of the public, with responses are on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Table 9 displays a varied response from NOPD officers. While certain respondents agreed that people in society will harm cops if given the opportunity (M = 2.82) and that residents do not understand the problems NOPD officers face (M = 3.38), the majority of police respondents disagreed with the statement “I get tired of listening to civilians complain about everything” (M = 2.10).

Table 9. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

72. People in society will harm you as a cop, 15 (3.7) 113 (28.1) 152 (37.8)

if you give them the opportunity. (M = 2.82)

Strongly Agree N (%)
77 (19.2)

73. Most people are honest. (M = 2.46)

36 (9.0) 136 (33.8) 175 (43.5) 13 (3.2)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 81 of 109
Page 81 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

74. In an emergency, most community members would come to the aid of a police officer that needs assistance. (M = 2.49)

31 (7.7)

123 (30.6) 173 (43.0)

75. In general, you should be suspicious of 25 (6.2) 143 (35.6) 168 (41.8) people. (M = 2.55)

Strongly Agree N (%) 12 (3.0)
29 (7.2)

76. The community shows a lot of respect 22 (5.5) 141 (35.1) 175 (43.5) 13 (3.2) for the NOPD police. (M = 2.51)

77. Residents do not understand the problems NOPD police officers face. (M = 3.38)

4 (1.0)

24 (6.0) 168 (41.8) 173 (43.0)

78. Many residents try to make NOPD 13 (3.2) 192 (47.8) 118 (29.4) 28 (7.0) officers look bad. (M = 2.46)

79. Most civilians have confidence in NOPD 15 (3.7) 117 (29.1) 204 (50.8) 13 (3.2) police. (M = 2.62)

80. I get tired of listening to civilians 73 (18.2) 202 (50.3) 60 (14.9) complain about everything. (M = 2.10)

25 (6.2)

81. The community doesn’t appreciate what 26 (6.5) 166 (41.3) 116 (28.9) 45 (11.2) we at NOPD do for them. (M = 2.51)

82. NOPD officers could do a better job if upper management did not interfere so much. (M = 2.67)

28 (7.0)

123 (30.6) 117 (29.1) 68 (16.9)

Table 10 presents respondents who agreed that “Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job” (M = 3.17), “Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on ‘who you know’” (M = 3.09), “Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD” (M = 2.80), “NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere” (M = 3.06) and, “The media is interested in stories about the NOPD only when an officer gets in trouble” (M = 3.30). These data provide somewhat conflicting results. On one hand, officers report

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 82 of 109
Page 82 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

that NOPD assignments and rewards are not based on merit (rarely rewarded for doing a good job and based on who you know). On the other hand, 62.7% of officers agreed that opportunities they are based on merit (hard work results in opportunities to get ahead). Respondents indicated negative perceptions of the media. Specifically, officers disagreed with the statement “In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly” (M = 2.14).

Table 10. Responses to Section VI: The Police Department and the Public (continued)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

83. Officers rarely get rewarded for doing a good job. (M = 3.17)

6 (1.5)

62 (15.4) 162 (40.3) 138 (34.3)

84. Landing a good NOPD assignment is based on “who you know.” (M = 3.09)

14 (3.5)

77 (19.2) 133 (33.1) 139 (34.6)

85. If you make a mistake, NOPD will give you a second chance. (M = 2.53)

37 (9.2)

116 (28.9) 189 (47.0)

21 (5.2)

86. Hard work can result in opportunities to get ahead within NOPD. (M = 2.80)

27 (6.7)

83 (20.7) 189 (47.0) 63 (15.7)

87. NOPD officers could do a better job if politicians did not interfere. (M = 3.06)

11 (2.7)

81 (20.2) 140 (34.8) 125 (31.1)

88. In general, the news media treat NOPD officers fairly. (M = 2.14)

89 (22.1)

160 (39.8)

85 (21.1)

28 (7.0)

89. The media is interested in stories about the NOPD only when an officer gets in 7 (1.7) 57 (14.2) 117 (29.1) 179 (44.5) trouble. (M = 3.30) Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.

9. The Police Department and Ethical Policing Is Courageous (EPIC) Peer Intervention Program

The final section of the survey asked respondents about their opinions of NOPD’s Ethical Policing is Courageous (EPIC) peer intervention program. EPIC is a department-wide peer intervention program designed to help officers prevent mistakes, prevent misconduct, and promote officer health and wellness through peer intervention. NOPD officers were asked

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 83 of 109
Page 83 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

to respond to questions about the NOPD EPIC training, as well as their understanding and implementation of the principles of peer intervention throughout the officers’ policing career.

The first question asked respondents their level of agreement with the statement, “I have received NOPD’s ‘EPIC’ peer intervention training” on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). 337 officers indicated that they had received EPIC training, and 28 officers did not receive EPIC training. Officers were then given a series of statements on their perceptions of the EPIC program and asked to indicate their level of agreement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree; see Table 11). In general, officer perceptions of EPIC were positive. A large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that EPIC was useful in helping to understand peer intervention (88.5%), that EPIC had given them confidence to intervene (81.0%), that EPIC is helpful to NOPD officers (86.4%), and that EPIC is helpful to civilians dealing with NOPD (73.4%).

Table 11. Officer Opinions of EPIC (Received EPIC ONLY)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree N (%)

99. NOPD’s EPIC training is useful in helping police officers understand the principles of 8 (2.4) peer intervention. (M = 3.25)

31 (9.2) 166 (49.3) 132 (39.2)

100. My EPIC training has given me confidence to intervene when I am concerned about another officer’s actions. (M = 3.13)

12 (3.6)

101. NOPD EPIC training is helpful to NOPD officers. (M = 3.22)

11 (3.3)

49 (14.5) 158 (46.9) 115 (34.1) 35 (10.4) 160 (47.5) 131 (38.9)

102. NOPD EPIC training is helpful to civilians dealing with NOPD officers. 19 (5.6) 66 (19.6) 139 (41.3) 108 (32.1) (M = 3.01) Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score is in parentheses next to the item.
Finally, Table 12 presents a comparison of responses to the statement “During my policing career, I have taken action to prevent another officer from making a mistake, acting unprofessionally, or engaging in misconduct.” Respondents reporting that they received

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 84 of 109
Page 84 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

EPIC training indicated stronger agreement to this item (EPIC: M = 3.27; no EPIC: M = 2.89). Furthermore, this difference is statistically significant (t(346) = -2.60, p < 0.01), indicating that EPIC training is effective in giving officers the confidence and skills to intervene with troubled peers.

Table 12. Peer Intervention Comparison During my policing career, I have taken action to prevent another officer from making a mistake, acting unprofessionally or engaging in misconduct:

Strongly Disagree
N (%)

Disagree N (%)

Agree N (%)

Strongly Agree
N (%)

Received EPIC: (M = 3.27)

8 (2.4)

28 (8.3) 154 (45.7) 131 (38.9)

Did not Receive EPIC: (M = 2.89)

2 (7.1)

5 (17.9) 14 (50.0) 6 (21.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score

is in parentheses next to the item.

C. DETAINEE SURVEY (2018)

The Monitoring Team surveyed 69 individuals recently arrested by the NOPD between December 4-8, and 11-12, 2018. Individuals agreeing to participate were asked a number of questions regarding their perceptions of the NOPD, NOPD officers, and the incident that led to their detention. The findings are summarized here:

• Detainees were neutral when asked about their level of satisfaction with the NOPD, whether NOPD officers did their jobs the right way, and whether NOPD officers were generally respectful, polite, and listened.

• Detainees were not satisfied with how NOPD officers generally treated them and did not generally have trust or have confidence in NOPD officers.

• While detainees were neutral in their perceptions of NOPD’s professionalism, community relations, and respectfulness, they leaned positive in their perceptions of how the NOPD has changed over the past two years.

• For detainees, a larger proportion report agreement with the statement that NOPD use of force has increased in recent years and that NOPD officers may routinely use excessive force.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 85 of 109
Page 85 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
• Detainees did not believe the NOPD treated the Black community fairly and believed that the NOPD engaged in racial profiling, but had neutral perceptions of NOPD’s treatment of the Latino community, the Vietnamese community, and the LGBTQ community.
• Detainees indicated that the NOPD officer explained the stop, allowed them to communicate, and did his or her job during the interaction that led to their current detention.
• Detainees indicated that the NOPD officer explained the reason for arrest, treated them fairly, and informed them of their rights during the interaction that led to their current detention.
In sum, when asked about the most recent interaction that led to their current detention, respondents’ perceptions were relatively positive.
1. Detainee Survey Methodology
Data for this report come from a population of 69 individuals detained by the NOPD and transported to the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office Jail. Interviewers were on site 6:00PM12: 30AM on Tuesday, December 4th through Thursday, December 6th, 2018, and Tuesday, December 11th and Wednesday, December 12th, 2018. Detainees were asked to speak with the OCDM survey team in the holding area of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO) Jail. When a NOPD officer would bring an arrestee to the jail, he or she was approached by a trained interviewer and asked to participate in a survey about the NOPD and his or her arrest. The selection criteria for participating in the survey were (i) being arrested by an NOPD officer,16 (ii) presence in the holding area during data collection (Tuesday-Thursday, 6PM to ~12:30AM), and (iii) English-speaking. OPSO staff assisted the Monitoring Team with access to the detained individuals located in OPP. During the 2018 jail survey, no translated interviews were requested by OPSO staff assisting with access, or the interviewing of respondents.
The interviews were conducted in private cells within the holding area. An interviewer explained the reason and goals of the interview, confidentiality, and that participation was voluntary. Two interviewers, trained to engage the respondent and record answers on a paper form, conducted the interview. Each interview was observed or supervised by a
16 Subjects brought in by state patrol or another parish, for example, were ineligible.
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 86 of 109
Page 86 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

member of the Monitoring Team. The style of the interviews was a standardized, structured script instrument. The interviewers were female, white and black community members, aged 31-51, experienced in qualitative data collection. The interviews were conducted in English (no translation requested) and lasted between 10 and 25 minutes. Individuals agreeing to participate were asked about their perceptions of the NOPD, NOPD officers, and the incident that led to their detention.

2. Demographic Characteristics

As can be seen in Table 1, detained respondents were predominately male (73.9%), black (59.4%), and a resident of New Orleans (71.0 %). Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the demographic distribution. The sample was also relatively young with an average age of 25.8 years old. Five participants (7.3%) identified as a member of the LGBTQ community. Individuals were asked how many times they had been arrested or stopped in the past six months or two years (see Appendix A). Many individuals in this sample reported repeated contact with the NOPD.

Table 1. Respondent Demographic Characteristics

N

%

Gender Male Female

51

73.9

16

23.2

Race White Black Latino/Hispanic Other

17

24.6

41

59.4

2

2.9

7

10.1

New Orleans Resident How long?

49

71.0

Mean = 25.8 years

Identify as LGBTQ

5

7.3

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 87 of 109
Page 87 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

3. General Attitudes Toward NOPD Officers

The first section of the survey focused on arrestees’ general perceptions of NOPD officers. Participants indicated beliefs about/attitudes towards NOPD officers on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Table 2 presents these items. The mean is presented in parentheses in the left column after the statement, presenting an overall estimate of the level of agreement with the statement. The columns on the right side of the table reflect how responses were distributed or clustered. In sum, the detainees surveyed were relatively neutral when asked about their level of satisfaction with the NOPD, whether NOPD officers did their jobs the right way, and whether NOPD officers were respectful, polite, and listened to the detainee. However, when asked about NOPD’s treatment of the detainee, their trust in NOPD, and their confidence in NOPD, their responses were substantially more negative.

The midpoint of this five-point scale falls at a value of three. Seven of the 10 items had mean values below this midpoint, or relatively neutral. The only items with higher mean values related to NOPD officers’ levels of respect and politeness. More respondents either agreed or strongly agreed (43.5%) that NOPD officers do their jobs the right way than disagreed or strongly disagreed (39.1%). Similarly, more respondents agreed or strongly agreed (42.0%) that they were satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle themselves than disagreed or strongly disagreed (40.5%). Relatively more negative responses were found for the items “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me,” “I trust NOPD officers,” “I have confidence in NOPD officers,” and “I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their jobs.” For these four items, the mean score was substantially below the midpoint and had greater proportions of respondents indicating they disagreed or strongly disagreed than agreed or strongly agreed.

Table 2. Detainees’ attitudes toward NOPD officers

Strongly Disagree
(1)

Disagree (2)

1. Generally, NOPD officers do their jobs the right way. (M = 2.85, N=68)

N (%) 15 (21.7)

N (%) 12 (17.4)

Neither Agree/ Disagree
(3) N (%)
11 (15.9)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree (5)

N (%)

N (%)

28 (40.6) 2 (2.9)

2. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers handle 11 (15.9) themselves. (M = 2.91, N=68)

17 (24.6)

11 (15.9)

25 (36.2)

4 (5.8)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 88 of 109
Page 88 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 2. Detainees’ attitudes toward NOPD officers

Strongly Disagree
(1)

Disagree (2)

N (%)

N (%)

Neither Agree/ Disagree
(3) N (%)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree (5)

N (%)

N (%)

3. When dealing with me, NOPD officers treat me with respect. (M = 3.26, N=69)

9 (13.0)

12 (17.4)

6 (8.7)

36 (52.2)

6 (8.7)

4. When dealing with me, NOPD officers are polite. (M = 3.19, N=69)

8 (11.6)

13 (18.8) 10 (14.5) 34 (49.3)

4 (5.8)

5. In general, NOPD officers are polite when dealing with the general public. (M = 3.12, N=69)

9 (13.0)

15 (21.7)

8 (11.6)

33 (47.8)

4 (5.8)

6. Generally, NOPD officers listen to me. (M = 2.93, N=69)

8 (11.6)

22 (31.9)

9 (13.0)

27 (39.1)

3 (4.4)

7. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers treat me. 14 (20.3) (M = 2.77, N=69)

19 (27.5)

8 (11.6)

25 (36.2)

3 (4.4)

8. I trust NOPD officers. (M = 2.23, N=69)

24 (34.8) 21 (30.4) 9 (13.0) 14 (20.3) 1 (1.5)

9. I have confidence in NOPD

officers.

18 (26.1)

(M = 2.44, N=69)

24 (34.8)

6 (8.7)

20 (29.0)

1 (1.5)

10. I am satisfied with the way NOPD officers do their job. 16 (23.2) 19 (27.5) 8 (11.6) 24 (34.8) 1 (1.5) (M = 2.63, N=68)
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 89 of 109
Page 89 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 3 includes items rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) rather than from 1 to 5. Thus, for these items there is no neutral response category and the detainees are forced either to agree or disagree. A majority of respondents indicated that they either strongly disagreed or disagreed that NOPD officers were trustworthy (66.7%), that NOPD officers followed procedures (52.2%), and that they were satisfied with how NOPD officers behaved (55%). By contrast, the most common response categories for the statement “NOPD officers harass people during police stops,” was “Disagree” (37.7%) and “Agree” (36.2%).

Table 3. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD

Strongly

Disagree

N (%)

I feel NOPD officers are trustworthy. (M = 1.99, N=67)

24 (34.8)

Disagree N (%)
22 (31.9)

Agree N (%) 19 (27.5)

Strongly Agree N (%)
2 (2.9)

I believe police officers follow New Orleans Police Department procedures. (M = 2.20, N=67)

18 (26.1)

18 (26.1)

30 (43.5)

1 (1.5)

I was satisfied with how NOPD officers behave in New Orleans. (M = 2.16, N=67)

19 (27.5)

19 (27.5)

28 (40.6)

1 (1.5)

NOPD officers harass people

during police stops. (M = 2.63,

4 (5.8)

26 (37.7)

25 (36.2)

10 (14.5)

N=65)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

The survey of detainees also asked for respondents’ perceptions of how they believed NOPD officers would treat them during an interaction (see Table 4). The large proportion of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed (55.1%) that NOPD officers would treat them with dignity. However, a large proportion of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that an NOPD officer would treat them with respect (56.5%) and would be polite (58.0%).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 90 of 109
Page 90 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 4. Detainees’ perceptions of how NOPD officers would treat them

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

A NOPD officer would treat me with dignity. 14 (20.3) 24 (34.8)

(M = 2.22, N=66)

Agree
N (%) 27 (39.1)

Strongly Agree N (%) 1 (1.5)

A NOPD officer would treat me with respect. 10 (14.5) (M = 2.47, N=66)

17 (24.6)

37 (53.6)

2 (2.9)

An NOPD police officer would be polite when 6 (8.7)

19 (27.5) 36 (52.2)

4 (5.8)

dealing with me. (M = 2.58, N=65)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

4. General Attitudes Toward the NOPD

In addition to items asking the detainees about their perceptions of NOPD officers, items also asked for participants’ perceptions of the NOPD as an agency. Figure 2 presents the first of these items, which asks detainees how well the NOPD is doing its job. The results indicate a positive perception of the NOPD overall with the most common response category being “Adequately” and the second most common response category being “Well.”

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 91 of 109 Page 91 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
Figure 2. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD job quality

Table 5 presents that a majority of detainees indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that they respected the NOPD (68.2%). However, a majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they trusted the NOPD (62.4%). Similarly, a majority of participants indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had confidence in the NOPD (59.4%). Responses to the item, “The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community,” were more evenly split with the two most common response categories being “Disagree” (30.4%) or “Agree” (46.4%). Thus, detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD were decidedly mixed. It appears that detainees are neutral on respecting the NOPD and believing the NOPD is fair when policing the community, but they do not trust the NOPD and do not have confidence in the NOPD.

Table 5. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD
I respect the New Orleans Police Department. (M = 2.54, N=68)

Strongly Disagree
N (%)
13 (18.8)

Disagree N (%) 8 (11.6)

Agree N (%) 44 (63.8)

Strongly Agree N (%)
3 (4.4)

I trust the New Orleans Police Department. (M = 1.97, N=68)

21 (30.4)

29 (42.0)

17 (24.6)

1 (1.5)

I have confidence in the New Orleans Police Department. (M = 2.19, N=68)

15 (21.7)

26 (37.7)

26 (37.7)

1 (1.5)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 92 of 109
Page 92 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 5. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

The NOPD tries to be fair when policing the community. (M = 2.40, N=67)

11 (15.9)

21 (30.4)

32 (46.4)

3 (4.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Table 6 examines detainees’ perceptions of the NOPD’s professionalism, community relations, and respectfulness. For the first two questions, detainees most commonly responded in the middle category indicating that the NOPD is sometimes professional (62.3%) and that community relations are sometimes positive (52.2%). While the issue of respectfulness was measured with five categories, the middle category again received the most responses, indicating that detainees most commonly thought that NOPD officers sometimes treat the detainees and their friends and family with respect (30.4%). However, for this question, receiving almost as many responses, was that officers often treat the detainees’ friends and family with respect (29.0%).

Table 7 presents responses to similar questions about professionalism, community relations, and respectfulness, but asks respondents to reflect on how the NOPD has changed over the past two years.

Table 6. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful

treatment.

Never Sometimes Always

Professional Professional Professional

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

I would like to know if you think the NOPD is professional. Officers are: (M = 2.09, N=69)

10 (14.5)

43 (62.3)

16 (23.2)

Never Positive N (%)

Sometimes Positive N (%)

Always Positive N (%)

How would you describe relations between NOPD and your community? (M = 1.82, N=68)

22 (31.9)

36 (52.2)

10 (14.5)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 93 of 109
Page 93 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 6. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD professionalism, community relations, and respectful

treatment.

Never treat Seldom treat Sometimes Often treat Always

us with

us with treat us with us with treat us with

respect

respect

respect

respect

respect

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Please tell me which statement best describes how NOPD officers treat you, your friends, and family members. Officers: (M = 3.12, N=67)

10 (14.5)

8 (11.6)

21 (30.4) 20 (29.0) 8 (11.6)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Table 7. Comparison of detainees’ perceptions of professionalism, treatment, and respectfulness

Compared to 2 years ago:

Much less professional
today N (%)

Slightly less professional
today N (%)

About the same as two
years ago N (%)

Somewhat more
professional today N (%)

Much more professional
today N (%)

NOPD officers are: (professionalism, M = 3.26, N=65)

8 (11.6)

9 (13.0)

21 (30.4)

12 (17.4)

15 (21.7)

Much worse N (%)

Somewhat worse N (%)

About the same N (%)

Somewhat better N (%)

Much better N (%)

How would you

describe

the

relationship between

NOPD and your

community? (M = 3.06,

N=67)

10 (14.5)

9 (13.0)

24 (34.8)

15 (21.7)

9 (13.0)

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 94 of 109
Page 94 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Much less respectful
today N (%)

Somewhat less
respectful today N (%)

About the same as two
years ago N (%)

Somewhat more
respectful today N (%)

Much more respectful
today N (%)

NOPD officers are: (respect, M = 3.15, N=65)

7 (10.1)

5 (7.3)

31 (44.9)

15 (21.7)

7 (10.1)

Much worse N (%)

Somewhat worse N (%)

About the same N (%)

Somewhat better N (%)

Much better N (%)

How do NOPD officers

treat

minorities

compared to others?

(M = 3.00, N=48)

7 (10.1)

7 (10.1)

21 (30.4)

5 (7.3)

8 (11.6)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

When responding to questions of police professionalism, detainees most commonly indicated that NOPD’s professionalism was about the same as two years ago (30.4%). However, the second most common response was that the NOPD was much more professional today (21.7%). In considering community relations, the most common response was that community relations were about the same (34.8%), however, the second most common response was that relations between the NOPD and the community are somewhat better today (21.7%). Finally, a similar pattern emerged regarding NOPD’s respectfulness, with “about the same” (44.9%) receiving the most responses and “somewhat more respectful today” (21.7%) receiving the second most responses. In sum, detainees were relatively neutral on NOPD’s professionalism, community relations, and respectfulness, but leaned more positive in their perceptions.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 95 of 109
Page 95 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 8. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD use of force

Strongly

Disagree

N (%)

NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years. (M = 2.68, N=65)

1 (1.5)

Disagree N (%)
27 (39.1)

Agree N (%) 29 (42.0)

Strongly Agree N (%)
8 (11.6)

NOPD officers routinely use excessive force. (M = 2.67, N=66)

0 (0.0)

31 (44.9) 26 (37.7)

9 (13.0)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Table 8 includes two questions about perceptions of NOPD’s use of force.

Large proportions of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that NOPD use of force has increased in recent years. In 2018, approximately more than half (53.6%) of detainees (37 respondents) reported “Strongly Agree” 1 or “Agree” 2 for the statement “NOPD police use of force has increased in recent years.” A slightly smaller proportion, 50.7% reported agreement with the statement “NOPD officers routinely use excessive force.” However, it can be noted the most common response category for the item asking about routinely using excessive force was “disagree” (44.9%).

5. Perceptions of NOPD Treatment of Minorities

Table 9 presents detainees’ responses to a series of questions regarding NOPD’s treatment of minorities. Items were scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). A large proportion of respondents commonly indicated they had no opinion. Specifically, the most common responses regarding the treatment of members of the Black community were “strongly disagree” (23.2%) and “disagree” (27.5%), and the most common responses regarding a belief in racial profiling were “agree” (44.9%) and “strongly agree” (20.3%). Thus, detainees tended to think that NOPD officers treat members of the Black community unfairly and believed that the NOPD engaged in racial profiling.

Other items in Table 9 reflect perceptions of NOPD officers’ treatment of the Latino community, the Vietnamese community, and the LGBTQ community. For all three items the most common response categories were “agree” and “disagree.” Both the “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” categories received only a small proportion of responses.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 96 of 109
Page 96 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 9. Detainees’ perceptions of NOPD treatment of minorities

New Orleans police officers:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Treat members of the Black community fairly. (M = 2.13, N=54)

16 (23.2)

19 (27.5)

15 (21.7)

Strongly Agree N (%)
4 (5.8)

No Opinion N (%)
15 (21.7)

Treat members of the Latino community fairly. (M = 2.24, N=33)

8 (11.6)

12 (17.4)

10 (14.5)

3 (4.4)

36 (52.2)

Treat members of the Vietnamese community fairly. (M = 2.50, N=30)

3 (4.4)

12 (17.4) 12 (17.4)

3 (4.4)

39 (56.5)

Treat members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community fairly. (M = 2.19, N=36)

7 (10.1)

17 (24.6)

10 (14.5)

2 (2.9)

33 (47.8)

Engage in racial (M = 3.07, N=54)

profiling.

1 (1.5)

8 (11.6) 31 (44.9) 14 (20.3) 15 (21.7)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item. In calculating mean

score, “No Opinion” was treated as missing. 2018 Detainee sample demographics: White: 24.6% Black: 59.4% Latino: 2.9% Other: 10.1% Male: 73.9% Female: 23.2% Member of LBGTQ Community: 7.2%

6. Perceptions of Arrest
Detainees were also asked about perceptions of the encounter that led to their arrest. That is, while earlier questions examined detainees’ perceptions of NOPD officers, the NOPD as an agency, or NOPD’s treatment of minorities, the following items were specific to the incident that led to the detainee’s presence in jail at the time of the survey. Table 10 presents responses to three items that were measured on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). First, detainees were asked if the officer explained the reason for their stop that led to the arrest. The large number of detainees agreed with this statement (53.6%) and the mean item score was 2.56. Next, detainees were asked if the NOPD officer gave them a chance to explain their situation. While the mean item score was below the midpoint (M = 2.38), the most common response was “Agree” (46.4%). Finally, detainees were asked if the NOPD officer did his or her job. The proportion of respondents also agreed with this statement (58.0%) and the mean item score was slightly above the
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 97 of 109
Page 97 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

midpoint (M = 2.58). Thus, while responses to items in the previous sections asking for general perceptions of the NOPD were neutral to slightly negative, respondents indicated slightly positive perceptions of the encounter that led to their arrest.

Table 10. Detainees’ perceptions of officer behavior during arrest

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

If I was stopped or questioned by an NOPD

officer, the police officer explained the reasons 9 (13.0) 14 (20.3)

why. (M = 2.56, N=64)

Agree N (%)
37 (53.6)

Strongly Agree N (%)
4 (5.8)

When dealing with me, the NOPD officer gave me a chance to explain the situation. (M = 2.38, 13 (18.8) N=65)

17 (24.6)

32 (46.4)

3 (4.4)

Overall, the NOPD officer did his or her job. (M = 2.58, N=64)

9 (13.0)

12 (17.4)

40 (58.0)

3 (4.4)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

As an alternative approach to examining perceptions of the detainees’ arrest, Table 11 presents the results from a series of items examining yes or no responses to different characteristics of the arrest. For example, the first item asks detainees to answer yes or no to the question “Did the officer explain why you were stopped?” In response a large number of detainees indicated that the officer had explained the reason for the stop (53.6%). Similarly, a majority of respondents indicated that the officer explained why the detainee was arrested (78.3%), that they understood why they were in jail (89.9%), that the police treated them fairly (65.2%), and that the officer informed them of their rights (79.7%). Furthermore, a majority of respondents indicated that they did not have any problems communicating with the officer (71.0%), that the officer did not threaten them physically (91.3%), that the officer did not use force to arrest them (79.7%), that they did not physically resist the officer (92.8%), and that they were not hurt interacting with the officer (87.0%).

In sum, detainees’ responses to questions indicate that officers were doing their job appropriately during their arrests. In fact, only 10 subjects indicate the officer did not inform them of their rights and, while eleven detainees indicated that force was used against them, only two indicated that they physically resisted the officer. These findings may be caveated by two points. First, respondents indicating they were not informed of

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 98 of 109
Page 98 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

their rights may be individuals who expected to be read their Miranda rights when they were arrested because it is frequently done on television, when in reality officers are only required to read these rights when interrogating a suspect. Second, policing experts and officers may define refusal of commands, pulling away, or fleeing the scene as resistance, while community members view resistance in a more physical manner as an individual fighting the officer.

Table 11. Detainees’ perceptions of arrest Did the officer(s) explain why you were stopped?

No N (%)
18 (26.1)

Yes N (%)
37 (53.6)

Did the officer(s) explain why you were arrested?

7 (10.1)

54 (78.3)

Do you understand why you are in jail today?

5 (7.3)

62 (89.9)

Did the police treat you fairly?

22 (31.9)

45 (65.2)

Did you have any problems communicating with the officer?

49 (71.0)

18 (26.1)

Did the officer inform you of your rights?

10 (14.5)

55 (79.7)

Did an officer threaten you physically?

63 (91.3)

4 (5.8)

Did an officer use force to arrest you?

55 (79.7)

11 (15.9)

Did you physically resist the officer?

64 (92.8)

2 (2.9)

Were you hurt when interacting with the officer?

60 (87.0)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing.

7 (10.1)

7. Future Behavior

The last section examines detainees’ responses to two items that measure willingness to contact NOPD in the future, on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The most common response to both if detainees would report dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD and if detainees would call the NOPD if they witnessed a crime was “Agree” (53.6% and 43.5%, respectively). However, the second most common response was “Disagree” (26.1% and 33.3%, respectively).

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 99 of 109
Page 99 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

Table 12. Detainees’ willingness to contact NOPD in the future

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N (%)

N (%)

I would report a dangerous or suspicious activity to the NOPD. (M = 2.50, N=67)

9 (13.0)

18 (26.1)

Agree N (%)
37 (53.6)

Strongly Agree N (%)
3 (4.4)

I would call the NOPD if I witnessed a crime. (M = 2.32, N=67)

12 (17.4)

23 (33.3) 30 (43.5) 2 (2.9)

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because nonresponse was treated as missing. The mean score and

number of respondents for each item are presented in parentheses next to the item.

Scale

2.51

2.43

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 100 of 109
Page 100 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

VIII. Appendixes

A. Appendix A: Police Officer Survey Distribution and Graphs

WEEK 1
DISTRICT/PLATOON
COMPLIANCE HOMICIDE SVS-HQ SPECIAL EVENTS APR UNIT SOD PIB SUPT. OFFICE 8TH DISTRICT WEEK 2
DISTRICT/PLATOON
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C

WEEK 1 WEEK 1

DATE

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

10/24/18 10/24/18 10/24/18 10/24/18 10/24/18 10/25/18 10/25/18 10/25/18 10/26/18 WEEK 2

7 4 1 0 11 42 14 2 10 WEEK 2

DATE

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

10/29/18 10 10/29/18 11 10/29/18 12 10/30/18 8 10/30/18 12 10/30/18 11 10/31/18 5 10/31/18 7 10/31/18 6 11/16/18 10 11/1/18 9 11/1/18 9 11/2/18 10 11/2/18 8 11/2/18 11

WEEK 1 WEEK 1

DATE

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

10/25/18 11 10/25/18 0 10/26/18 0 10/26/18 3

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 101 of 109
Page 101 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

WEEK 3
DISTRICT/PLATOON
6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B COMPLETED 10/26/18 8C 8BOURBON WEEK 4
DISTRICT/PLATOON
TRAFFIC SVS-FJ DISTRICT ATTORNEY SECTION JUVENILE SECTION CENTRAL EVIDENCE & PROPERTY CRIME LAB EDUCATION & TRAINING RECRUITMENT

WEEK 3 WEEK 3

DATE

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

11/6/18 11/5/18 11/5/18 11/6/18 11/6/18 11/6/18 11/7/18 11/7/18 11/7/18 11/13/18 WEEK 4

8 9 9 11 9 11 7 0 6 10 WEEK 4

DATE

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

11/15/18 5 11/12/18 5 11/12/18 2 11/12/18 2 11/16/18 4 11/16/18 6 11/14/18 15 11/14/18 6

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 102 of 109
Page 102 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

OTHER

NO. # OF SURVEYS COLLECTED

7TH DISTRICT A

1

ISB

1

FOB- HQ

2

MSB-HQ

4

ISB

10/29/18 1

COMPLIANCE

11/6/18 1

6TH DISTRICT DURING COMMUNITY MEETING

11/15/18

7

HQ

11/16/18 3

ISB

11/16/18 7

6TH DISTRICT NIGHTWATCH

11/15/18 6

TOTAL

402

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 103 of 109 Page 103 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
B. Appendix B: Detainee Survey Graphs Detainees stopped in last 2 years
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 104 of 109 Page 104 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Detainees stopped in last 6 months
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 105 of 109 Page 105 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Detainees arrested in last 2 years
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 106 of 109 Page 106 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com Detainees arrested in last 6 months
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 107 of 109
Page 107 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

C. Appendix C: Detainee Survey References

•

Fagan, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice

Research, 18, 217-241.

•

Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of

Sociology, 89, 552-584.

•

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final Report of the President’s Task

Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services.

•

Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 108 of 109 Page 108 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com
D. Appendix D: Community Survey Neighborhoods
Algiers Point Audubon Behrman Bywater City Park East Riverside Filmore Florida French Quarter Gentilly Woods Lake Terrace & Oaks Leonidas Little Woods Lower 9th Ward Lower Garden District Marigny Marlyville/Fontainebleau McDonogh MidCity Milan Milneburg Old Aurora Plum Orchard Seventh Ward St. Claude St. Roch Tall Timbers/Brechtel U.S. Naval Support Area
Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-DPC Document 581-1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 109 of 109
Page 109 of 109 November 11, 2019 www.consentdecreemonitor.com

E. Appendix E: Comparison of City and Survey Demographics

Gender Male Female Race/Ethnicity Black Asian White Latino/Hispanic Other (American Indian, Two Races, Other) Education Less than 9th (9-12th, no diploma) Some High School Finished High School/GED Some College (Associates or Bachelors) Finished College Degree Graduate or Professional Degree Marital Status ACS 2017 5-year Population 15 Years and Over Single Married Divorced Partnered Widowed Own Home Owner occupied/renter-occupied Own Rent

Survey % 53.5 59.9
21.4 22.8 29.3
48.1
69.5 29.7

Orleans Parish % 2012-2016 ACS Projections by Data Center
47.8 52.2
59.3 2.9 30.6 5.5 1.8
3.9 10.5
23.3 24.9 23.7
11.4
67 33
46.4 53.6

2010 Census
59.6 2.9 30.5 5.2 59.6

Office of the Consent Decree Monitor Appointed By Order Of The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana

 
 Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division March 16, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v A. Patterns and Practices of Unconstitutional Conduct ............................................................. vi 1. Use of Force................................................................................................................. vi 2. Stops, Searches and Arrests........................................................................................ vii 3. Discriminatory Policing............................................................................................... ix B. Systemic Deficiencies Causing or Contributing to Unconstitutional Conduct.................... xii 1. Policies....................................................................................................................... xiii 2. Recruitment ............................................................................................................... xiv 3. Training ..................................................................................................................... xiv 4. Supervision ................................................................................................................ xiv 5. Paid Details................................................................................................................. xv 6. Performance Evaluations and Promotions................................................................. xvi 7. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication .............................. xvii 8. Community Oriented Policing................................................................................. xviii 9. Officer Assistance and Support .................................................................................. xx 10. Interrogation Practices ................................................................................................ xx 11. Community Oversight ............................................................................................... xxi C. Summary of Recommendations ......................................................................................... xxii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... xxiv GENERAL METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. xxv ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... xxvi II. Use of Force....................................................................................................................- 1 -
A. Legal Standards..................................................................................................................- 1 B. Findings..............................................................................................................................- 1 -
1. Overview of Force Findings .....................................................................................- 1 2. Unreasonable Use of Force.......................................................................................- 3 3. Failure to Implement Measures to Prevent Unreasonable Force..............................- 9 III. Stops, Searches and Arrests ..........................................................................................- 26 A. Legal Standards................................................................................................................- 26 B. Findings............................................................................................................................- 27 1. Inadequate Policies and Training ...........................................................................- 28 2. Organizational Focus on Arrests ............................................................................- 29 3. Failure to Properly Justify Stops, Searches, and Arrests ........................................- 30 -
i

IV. Discriminatory Policing ................................................................................................- 31 A. Legal Standards................................................................................................................- 32 1. Fourteenth Amendment ..........................................................................................- 32 2. Safe Streets Act ......................................................................................................- 33 3. Title VI ...................................................................................................................- 33 B. Findings............................................................................................................................- 34 1. Discriminatory Policing on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT Status .........- 34 2. National Origin Discrimination: Failure to Provide Police Services to Persons with Limited English Proficiency .............................................................................................- 40 3. Gender-Biased Policing: Failure to Investigate Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence ............................................................................................................................- 43 -
V. Recruitment...................................................................................................................- 51 VI. Training.........................................................................................................................- 54 -
A. Deficiencies in Developing and Delivering Training ......................................................- 54 1. Inadequate Development of Priorities and Goals ...................................................- 54 2. Weaknesses in Curricula, Lesson Plans and Presentation......................................- 55 -
B. Deficiencies in Staffing, Facilities, and Recordkeeping..................................................- 56 1. Failure to Develop Criteria for Instructor Selection and Review...........................- 56 2. Inadequate Training Facilities ................................................................................- 57 3. Lack of Effective Record Management..................................................................- 57 -
C. Inadequate Recruit, Field, and In-Service Training.........................................................- 58 1. Problems in Recruit (Academy) Training ..............................................................- 58 2. Deficiencies in Field Training Program .................................................................- 58 3. Failure to Provide In-Service Training...................................................................- 59 -
VII. Field Supervision ..........................................................................................................- 60 A. Deficient Field Supervision Policies................................................................................- 61 B. Deficient Field Supervision in Practice ...........................................................................- 63 1. Failures in First-line Supervision ...........................................................................- 63 2. Reliance on Integrity Control Officers ...................................................................- 64 3. Ineffective Alternative Mechanisms for Supervision.............................................- 64 C. Implementing Effective and Accountable Field Supervision ..........................................- 65 1. Appropriate Span of Control and Staffing Allocation............................................- 66 2. Unity of Command .................................................................................................- 66 3. Systems to Support Field Supervision....................................................................- 67 -
VIII. Paid Details ...................................................................................................................- 69 -
ii

A. The Impact of the Detail System as Currently Structured ...............................................- 70 1. Negative Impact on Quality of NOPD Policing ....................................................- 70 2. Role of Details in Facilitating Abuse and Corruption ............................................- 72 3. Increased Risk of Dangerous Officer Fatigue ........................................................- 72 4. Role of Details in Contributing to Inequitable Policing .........................................- 73 5. Cost of Details to the City ......................................................................................- 73 -
B. Fixing the Paid Detail System..........................................................................................- 73 IX. Performance Evaluations and Promotions ....................................................................- 75 -
A. Inadequate Processes to Assess Officer Performance .....................................................- 76 B. Inadequate Systems for Promoting Ethical and Effective Officers .................................- 77 X. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication ..................................- 79 A. NOPD Misconduct Investigation Process and Background ............................................- 80 B. Deficiencies in Misconduct Complaint Intake and Investigation ....................................- 82 -
1. Outdated and Inconsistent Policies.........................................................................- 82 2. Systemic Failure to Investigate and Track Allegations of Bias..............................- 84 3. Inadequate Training for Complaint Intake and Investigation.................................- 84 4. Insufficient PIB Staffing.........................................................................................- 85 5. Faulty Complaint Intake and Classification ...........................................................- 86 6. Investigations Inadequate to Support Reliable Findings ........................................- 89 C. Inadequate Investigations of Criminal Misconduct .........................................................- 92 D. Deficient System for Administrative Discipline..............................................................- 94 E. Role of the Civil Service Commission in Disciplinary Adjudication..............................- 96 1. Commission’s High Rate of Affirming NOPD Disciplinary Decisions.................- 97 2. Role of NOPD and the City in Reversal of Some Disciplinary Decisions.............- 98 3. Infrequent Appeals of Unfavorable Commission Decisions ..................................- 99 XI. Community Oriented Policing ....................................................................................- 100 A. Need for Community Oriented Policing ........................................................................- 100 B. Lack of Collaborative Community Partnerships............................................................- 101 C. Challenges to Achieving Organizational Transformation .............................................- 103 D. Lack of Systematic Problem-Solving ............................................................................- 105 XII. Officer Assistance and Support Services ....................................................................- 106 XIII. Interrogation Practices ................................................................................................- 107 A. Custodial Interrogations.................................................................................................- 108 B. Problems with NOPD Interrogations .............................................................................- 110 -
iii

1. Flaws in Interrogation Policies .............................................................................- 110 2. Insufficient Training and Selection Requirements for Detectives........................- 111 3. Failure to Conduct Full and Complete Interrogations ..........................................- 111 4. Deficient Documentation of Interrogations..........................................................- 112 C. Allegations of Constitutional Violations .......................................................................- 112 XIV. Community oversight..................................................................................................- 113 XV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................- 115 -
Appendix: Recommendations to the New Orleans Police Department
iv

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NOPD has long been a troubled agency. Basic elements of effective policing— clear policies, training, accountability, and confidence of the citizenry—have been absent for years. Far too often, officers show a lack of respect for the civil rights and dignity of the people of New Orleans. While the majority of the force is hardworking and committed to public safety, too many officers of every rank either do not understand or choose to ignore the boundaries of constitutional policing. Some argue that, given the difficulty of police work, officers must at times police harshly and bend the rules when a community is confronted with seemingly intransigent high levels of crime. Policing is undeniably difficult; however, experience and study in the policing field have made it clear that bending the rules and ignoring the Constitution makes effective policing much more challenging. NOPD’s failure to ensure that its officers routinely respect the Constitution and the rule of law undermines trust within the very communities whose cooperation the Department most needs to enforce the law and prevent crime. As systematic violations of civil rights erode public confidence, policing becomes more difficult, less safe, and less effective, and crime increases.
The deficiencies in the way NOPD polices the City are not simply individual, but structural as well. For too long, the Department has been largely indifferent to widespread violations of law and policy by its officers. NOPD does not have in place the basic systems known to improve public safety, ensure constitutional practices, and promote public confidence. We found that the deficiencies that lead to constitutional violations span the operation of the entire Department, from how officers are recruited, trained, supervised, and held accountable, to the operation of Paid Details. In the absence of mechanisms to protect and promote civil rights, officers too frequently use excessive force and conduct illegal stops, searches and arrests with impunity. In addition, the Department’s culture tolerates and encourages under-enforcement and under-investigation of violence against women. The Department has failed to take meaningful steps to counteract and eradicate bias based on race, ethnicity, and LGBT status in its policing practices, and has failed to provide critical policing services to language minority communities.
The problems in NOPD developed over a long period of time and will take time to address and correct. The Department must develop and implement new policies and protocols, train its officers in effective and constitutional policing, and institutionalize systems to ensure accountability, foster police-community partnerships, improve the quality of policing to all parts of the City, and eliminate unlawful bias from all levels of NOPD policing decisions.
Recommendations on achieving these changes are attached to this Report. We look forward to working with NOPD and the City of New Orleans to address the violations of constitutional and federal law that we identified, by developing and implementing a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform that will: (1) reduce crime; (2) ensure respect for the Constitution and the rule of law; and (3) restore public confidence in NOPD.
v

We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD engages in patterns of misconduct that violate the Constitution and federal law.1 We find further that NOPD practices and deficiencies cause or contribute to these patterns of misconduct. The following is a summary of these findings.
A. Patterns and Practices of Unconstitutional Conduct
1. Use of Force
Police-civilian interactions only rarely require the use of force. In the small portion of interactions where it is necessary for officers to use force, the Constitution requires that officers use only the amount of force that is reasonable under the circumstances. We found that officers in NOPD routinely use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution and NOPD policy.
Our investigation did not include consideration of widely reported allegations of officer misconduct related to NOPD’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Many of these incidents have been, or are currently being, prosecuted by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. We deliberately kept our civil investigation separate from the criminal investigation and prosecution of any NOPD officer, and this Report does not discuss any incident that is the subject of ongoing federal criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, our investigation, which covered incidents that occurred within the past two years and assessed practices as they exist currently, revealed a clear pattern of unconstitutional uses of force by NOPD officers.
Our review of officer-involved shootings within just the last two years revealed many instances in which NOPD officers used deadly force contrary to NOPD policy or law. Despite the clear policy violations we observed, NOPD has not found that an officer-involved shooting violated policy in at least six years, and NOPD officials we spoke with could recall only one outof-policy finding even before that time.
We found a pattern of unreasonable less lethal force as well. We found that NOPD’s canines were uncontrollable to the point where they repeatedly attacked their own handlers, compelling us to recommend immediate suspension of NOPD’s use of canines to apprehend suspects. We found that officers use force against individuals, including persons in handcuffs, in circumstances that appeared not only unnecessary but deliberately retaliatory. We reviewed instances in which NOPD officers used significant force against mentally ill persons where it appeared that no use of force was justified.
1 Our investigation found reasonable cause to believe that NOPD has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, this finding authorizes the United States to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. We did not conduct a criminal investigation, which requires the government to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, of any NOPD officer or any other person. We make no assertions regarding the culpability of any individual.
vi

NOPD, for at least the past several years, has been all too frequently indifferent to its officers’ improper use of force. The Department has few meaningful controls to ensure that force is used appropriately. Officers are not properly trained on using force or alternatives to force. Policies regarding use and reporting of force are inconsistent, incomplete, and routinely disregarded. To the extent officers do report force, supervisors do not conduct investigations sufficient to determine whether the force was justified. Instances of clearly unjustified force are routinely approved by supervisors and ratified up the chain-of-command, resulting in no accountability. Officers even encourage each other to use force as retaliation. Indeed, when one NOPD officer reacted calmly after being spit on by another NOPD officer he had stopped for DWI, fellow NOPD officers told the arresting officer he was a coward for not at least punching the officer.
Even the most serious uses of force, such as officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths, are investigated inadequately or not at all. NOPD’s mishandling of officer-involved shooting investigations was so blatant and egregious that it appeared intentional in some respects. For a time, NOPD had a practice of temporarily assigning officers who had been involved in officer-involved shootings to the Homicide Division, and then automatically deeming the statements officers provided to homicide investigators to be “compelled,” effectively immunizing the use of these statements in any subsequent criminal investigation or prosecution. It is difficult to interpret this practice as anything other than a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult to criminally prosecute any officer in these cases. We reviewed incidents where investigative missteps could not be explained by deficient training, such as where investigators failed to even attempt to lift fingerprints from a handgun found on the scene of shooting, where the ownership of the handgun was in dispute, and then misrepresented witness statements in their investigative report so that it appeared the presence of the weapon on-scene was not disputed. During our inquiry, we learned that many Homicide Division investigations of officer-involved shootings had never been provided to NOPD’s Professional Integrity Bureau (“PIB”), which is charged with determining whether these shootings are consistent with NOPD policy. Some of these investigations were provided to PIB only following our inquiries, and the appointment of new leadership in NOPD’s Homicide Division. Several still have not been located.
NOPD’s use of force practices present a significant threat to the safety of the public and NOPD officers, and create a substantial obstacle to strong community-police partnerships. As we conducted our investigation, NOPD had begun to make significant and long overdue changes to its force policies regarding how officers will be trained to use force, and how force will be reported, investigated, and reviewed. NOPD will need to build on these initial steps with more comprehensive changes to policy and practice to end the pattern of unconstitutional use of force by NOPD.
2. Stops, Searches and Arrests
We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD officers engage in a pattern of stops, searches, and arrests that violate the Fourth Amendment. Detentions without reasonable suspicion are routine, and lead to unwarranted searches and arrests without probable cause. Our review of 145 randomly-sampled arrest and investigative reports confirmed a pattern of unlawful
vii

conduct. Of the arrests that NOPD initiated, we found that a significant portion reflected on their face apparent constitutional violations, in that officers failed to articulate sufficient facts to justify stops, searches, and arrests.
A previous DOJ investigation noted almost ten years ago that some NOPD officers could not articulate proper legal standards for stops, searches, or arrests. We recommended then that NOPD provide annual in-service training to officers on this critical topic. As discussed below, NOPD still does not provide meaningful in-service training to officers on how to properly carry out stops, searches, and arrests. NOPD’s failure to train officers or otherwise provide guidance on the limits and requirements of the Fourth Amendment contributes directly to the pattern of unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests we observed. Throughout the Department, and among other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, we heard broad and emphatic consensus that officers have a poor understanding of how to lawfully execute searches and seizures.
Additionally, the Department’s organizational focus on arrests, particularly in combination with its poor training and policies, encourages stops without reasonable suspicion, illegal pat downs, and arrests without probable cause. NOPD’s focus on statistics, such as generating Field Interview Cards (“FIC”s) and arrests, amplifies the risk that officers will execute illegal searches and seizures. NOPD patrol officers and many members of the command staff described a Department that has long been statistics-driven—one that measures “productivity” by quantity, rather than quality, of encounters and arrests. As one commander told us, “[t]hese officers are under the gun to make arrest, arrest, arrest, which leads to civil rights violations and complaints.” We observed that arrests, Terry stops, and FIC numbers were the predominant focus of the Department’s weekly COMSTAT meetings, and many officers described a strong and unyielding pressure to increase numbers.
Detached as it is from problem-oriented policing, community partnerships, or long term strategies, there is no indication that NOPD’s emphasis on arrests results in better crime prevention or safer communities. To the contrary, NOPD recently acknowledged that the Department’s staggering volume of arrests for low-level offenses is counter-productive. In November 2010, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Superintendent advised the City Council that officers would no longer make arrests based on outstanding traffic or misdemeanor warrants from neighboring parishes, noting that to do so “simply does not make sense, economical or common.”
We believe that with this pledge, the Department has taken a significant and positive step. Nonetheless, we found NOPD’s emphasis on “activity,” defined as numbers of encounters such as stops, FICs, and arrests—at the expense of a more deliberate focus on problem-solving—to be an ingrained part of NOPD’s organizational culture. Although the Superintendent’s commitment to ensuring that officers are engaged, observant, and productive is commendable and appropriate, the Department must recognize that its tactics and chosen police strategy, together with lapses in training and policy, cultivate an atmosphere where officers cut corners and make too many errors that result in constitutional harm and compromise effective law enforcement.
viii

3. Discriminatory Policing
We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in violation of constitutional and statutory law. Discriminatory policing occurs when police officers and departments unfairly enforce the law—or fail to enforce the law—based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, religion, or LGBT status. Discriminatory policing may take the form of bias-based profiling, in which an officer impermissibly decides whom to stop, search, or arrest based upon one of the above-mentioned characteristics, rather than upon the appropriate consideration of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Failing to provide police services to some persons or communities because of bias or stereotypes, or by not taking necessary steps to enable meaningful communication, also constitutes discriminatory policing. Discriminatory policing may also result when a police department selects particular enforcement and crime prevention tactics in certain communities or against certain individuals for reasons motivated by bias or stereotype.
NOPD has failed to take sufficient steps to detect, prevent, or address bias-based profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or LGBT status, despite widespread concern and troubling racial disparities in arrest rates and other data. We further find that the Department fails to adequately investigate violence against women, including sexual assaults and domestic violence. Additionally, we find that the Department fails to provide critical policing services to New Orleans residents with limited English proficiency.
a) Discriminatory Policing on Basis of Race, Ethnicity or LGBT status
Subjecting individuals to differential treatment—based on a belief that characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or religion signal a higher risk of criminality or unlawful activity—constitutes unlawful discrimination, often called “profiling” or “biased policing.” During our investigation, many members of the community—particularly African Americans, ethnic minorities, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community—reported that the Department subjects them to harassment and disrespectful treatment, and unfairly targets them for stops, searches, and arrests. Many members of NOPD echoed these concerns.
We found a clear failure by NOPD to implement adequate policies and provide appropriate training on how to identify and articulate suspicion based on behavior and other permissible factors. This critical lapse raises the risk that NOPD officers, without sufficient guidance and training on how to properly carry out stops and arrests, will instead rely on inappropriate factors such as racial stereotypes and bias in their decision-making. NOPD’s failure to acknowledge the potential for stereotypes and bias to taint police work, on both an individual and an organizational level, and to take steps to prevent this, further cultivates an atmosphere in which discriminatory policing can occur unchecked.
Indeed, the limited arrest data that the Department collects points to racial disparities in arrests of whites and African Americans in virtually all categories, with particularly dramatic disparity for African-American youth under the age of 17. Arrest data provided by NOPD
ix

indicates that in 2009, the Department arrested 500 African-American males and eight white males under the age of 17 for serious offenses, which range from homicide to larceny over fifty dollars. During this same period the Department arrested 65 African-American females and one white female in this same age group. Adjusting for population, these figures mean that the ratio of arrest rates for both African-American males to white males, and African-American females to white females, was nearly 16 to 1. Although a significant disparity in arrest rates for this age group exists nationwide, it is not nearly as extreme as the disparity found in New Orleans. Nationally in 2009, among those agencies reporting data, the arrest ratio of African-American youth to white youth, for the same offenses, was approximately 3 to 1. The level of disparity for youth in New Orleans is so severe and so divergent from nationally reported data that it cannot plausibly be attributed entirely to the underlying rates at which these youth commit crimes, and unquestionably warrants a searching review and a meaningful response from the Department.
NOPD use of force data also shows a troubling racial disparity that warrants a searching inquiry into whether racial bias influences the use of force at NOPD. Of the 27 instances between January 2009 and May 2010 in which NOPD officers intentionally discharged their firearms at people, all 27 of the subjects of this deadly force were African American. In our sample of resisting arrest reports documenting uses of force between January 2009 and May 2010, we found that in 81 of the 96 uses of force we reviewed (84%), the subject of the force was African American.
We also found reasonable cause to believe that NOPD practices lead to discriminatory treatment of LGBT individuals. In particular, transgender women complained that NOPD officers improperly target and arrest them for prostitution, sometimes fabricating evidence of solicitation for compensation. Moreover, transgender residents reported that officers are likelier, because of their gender identity, to charge them under the state’s “crimes against nature” statute—a statute whose history reflects anti-LGBT sentiment. Multiple convictions under the “crimes against nature” statute, unlike Louisiana’s general prostitution statute, require registration as a sex offender. Persons convicted of soliciting crimes against nature make up nearly 40 percent of the Orleans Parish sex offender registry. NOPD is charged with monitoring all registrants’ compliance with sex offender registry requirements, raising questions about efficient and effective use of resources to ensure public safety. Further, for the already vulnerable transgender community, inclusion on the sex offender registry further stigmatizes and marginalizes them, complicating efforts to secure jobs, housing, and obtain services at places like publicly-run emergency shelters. Of the registrants convicted of solicitation of a crime against nature, 80 percent are African American, suggesting an element of racial bias as well. Indeed, community members told us they believe some officers equate being African American and transgendered with being a prostitute.
Both bias and the perception of bias erode citizens’ inclination to trust and cooperate with law enforcement, impeding effective and safe policing. Nonetheless, NOPD has failed to take steps to counteract bias and promote impartial policing through proactive policies, clear messages from leadership, effective supervision, and quality training. The Department does not have a sufficiently comprehensive policy regarding discriminatory policing and fails to adhere to the policies that are in place. In addition, the Department has no way to track allegations and
x

complaints of racial profiling, and does not collect, analyze, or report race or ethnicity data for most citizen encounters with police.
b) Gender-Biased Policing: Failure to Adequately Investigate Allegations of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
Law enforcement may not selectively deny protective services to certain groups, including women. This principle applies to the under-investigation of violence against women, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Nonetheless, in many cities reports have surfaced of law enforcement agencies undercounting and failing to investigate allegations of sexual and domestic violence. Such under-enforcement appears to stem in part from cities’ reluctance to acknowledge the extent of serious crime in their communities, and in part from stereotypes and misapprehensions about sexual assaults and the victims of sex crimes.
We find that NOPD has systematically misclassified large numbers of possible sexual assaults, resulting in a sweeping failure to properly investigate many potential cases of rape, attempted rape, and other sex crimes. Additionally, we find that in situations where the Department pursues sexual assault complaints, the investigations are seriously deficient, marked by poor victim interviewing skills, missing or inadequate documentation, and minimal efforts to contact witnesses or interrogate suspects. The documentation we reviewed was replete with stereotypical assumptions and judgments about sex crimes and victims of sex crimes, including misguided commentary about the victims’ perceived credibility, sexual history, or delay in contacting the police. NOPD has recently acknowledged its serious deficits in responding to sex crimes, and has taken some significant remedial steps. NOPD and the City will need to build on these efforts to bring about the extensive and sustained change necessary to effectively and appropriately respond to these serious violent crimes.
We also find systemic deficiencies in NOPD’s handling of domestic violence cases. In recent years, the New Orleans Family Justice Center (“NOFJC”), a federally funded center designed to provide comprehensive services to victims of domestic violence by integrating law enforcement, prosecution, civil legal services, and advocacy in one location, has had a salutary effect on NOPD’s handling of domestic violence complaints. Nonetheless, we find significant weaknesses in Department policies and practices in responding to these cases.
c) National Origin Discrimination: Failure to Provide Effective Policing Services to Persons with Limited English Proficiency
Failing to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to services for limited English proficient (“LEP”) persons is a form of national origin discrimination. We find that NOPD is dangerously limited in its capacity to communicate effectively and accurately with LEP victims, witnesses, suspects, and community members in the Latino and Vietnamese communities. Language barriers, and the often closely related cultural barriers, can put cases and lives at risk and create safety, evidentiary, and ethical challenges for officers and others. Such barriers can prevent LEP individuals from understanding their rights, complying with the law, assisting law enforcement and receiving meaningful access to law enforcement services and information.
xi

NOPD has virtually no capacity to provide meaningful access to police services to LEP community members, who in New Orleans are predominantly Latino or of Vietnamese descent. The Vietnamese community has been an established presence in New Orleans since the mid1970s, and since Hurricane Katrina the City has seen a significant influx of Latino immigrants. Both communities represent growing shares of the City’s population, and a significant segment of each has limited proficiency in English. NOPD relies primarily upon just two officers, one fluent in Spanish and one fluent in Vietnamese, to assist on calls for service and investigations throughout the Department, in addition to performing their regular duties. The Department does not compensate these officers for interpreter services performed while off-duty or provide them with enhanced pay for language fluency; nor does the Department have protocols to assess the fluency of its multilingual officers and train them in carrying out their duties.
Community members described significant consequences resulting from language barriers in their dealings with NOPD—including delays in or denial of services, incidents where victims were mistaken for suspects, and situations where encounters escalated unnecessarily due to gaps in communication. At one community meeting, a monolingual Spanish speaker reported calling police on four different nights regarding domestic violence, but receiving a response only once.
During an August 2010 ride-along, we observed firsthand a delay in response to a call for service from a victim of domestic violence, apparently because she was a monolingual Spanishspeaker. It further appeared that the officer may not have responded at all if not pressed by the DOJ investigator and if the DOJ investigator had not happened to be bilingual. After the officer continued to patrol the district for 30 minutes following receipt of the complaint, the DOJ investigator inquired about what calls had come in through dispatch. The officer initially skipped over the domestic violence call, but then asked the DOJ investigator whether he spoke Spanish. When the investigator replied that he did, the officer responded to the call. Upon arrival at the scene, the victim, who had visible injuries, said she had been waiting more than an hour for a response. Later, the officer explained that there was only one person on the shift capable of serving as an interpreter, and that the individual was often difficult to reach.
NOPD’s lack of capacity to serve LEP communities undermines public safety, crime prevention, and crime-solving, and results in inferior police services to LEP community members. Although the Department has recently signaled its commitment to improving access to its services to LEP community members, NOPD has significant work ahead to ensure it can effectively serve the entire New Orleans community.
B. Systemic Deficiencies Causing or Contributing to Unconstitutional Conduct
A number of longstanding and entrenched practices cause or contribute to the patterns or practices of unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct we observed. The Department’s failure to provide sufficient guidance, training, and support to its officers, as well as its failure to implement systems to ensure officers are wielding their authority effectively and safely, have created an environment that permits and promotes constitutional harm. We found deficiencies in a wide swath of City and NOPD systems and operations, including failures to: adopt and enforce
xii

appropriate policies; properly recruit, train, and supervise officers; adequately review and investigate officer uses of force; fully investigate allegations of misconduct; identify and respond to patterns of at-risk officer behavior; implement community policing; oversee and control the system of Paid Details; provide officer assistance and support; or enact appropriate performance review and promotional systems. NOPD has recently begun making changes in each of these areas, but more, and more fundamental, change is necessary.
Alongside police practitioners, Courts have long acknowledged that deficiencies in systems and operations can unequivocally lead or contribute to constitutional violations. In City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Supreme Court held a municipality liable for failing to adequately train its law enforcement officers, recognizing that a law enforcement agency’s practices and decision-making can cause constitutional harm. Id. at 387. The Fifth Circuit has extended the City of Canton rationale to recognize that a broad range of systemic deficiencies can result in constitutional harm, including: inadequate disciplinary measures, Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 171 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 581 (5th Cir. 2001)); inadequate officer stress management programs, Snyder v. Trepagnier, 142 F.3d 791, 798-799 (5th Cir. 1998); and faulty screening of new officers, Brown v. Bryan County, 67 F.3d 1174 (5th Cir. 1995).
The deficiencies identified below must be corrected for legitimate, sustainable reform to occur. Without this comprehensive reform, the patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct within NOPD will continue.
1. Policies
Clear and well-drafted policies are essential to ensuring constitutional police practices. Officers need to know what is permitted and what is prohibited. Police managers need policies to guide their work and hold officers accountable.
In every area we reviewed, we found that NOPD policies do not provide sufficient guidance. Policies are outdated, inconsistent, and at times, legally inaccurate. Policies do not, for example, provide officers adequate guidance regarding stops, searches, and arrests that are lawful, safe, and effective. Use of force policies are incomplete, out of date, and often contradictory. NOPD does not have in place policies or protocols for how first responders (usually patrol officers) should respond to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. NOPD policies do not require sufficient collection of data to permit NOPD to track, assess, and respond to problems in a number of areas, from bias-based profiling, to use of force. Policies that do require NOPD to collect and analyze data are ignored. Policies related to complaint investigation facilitate the under-investigation of whole categories of complaints. There is a general lack of adherence to policy, exacerbated by pervasive tolerance by NOPD supervisors and commanders for officers’ routine failure to comply with policy.
We do not discuss policies in a stand-alone section in this Report, but rather discuss policies pertaining to specific areas, such as use of force, supervision, or complaint intake, in each corresponding section of the Report.
xiii

2. Recruitment
NOPD’s longstanding failure to prioritize the recruitment of high-quality candidates contributes to the chronic, Department-wide problems we observed, including inappropriate and disrespectful conduct in the community, corruption, unnecessary uses of force, and improper stops and searches. We found NOPD’s recruitment program to be anemic, entirely passive, and lacking clear goals, plans, or accountability. NOPD’s Recruitment and Applicant Unit, which has a staff of six commissioned law enforcement officers, has no plan to seek out and recruit qualified candidates. Recruiters were unclear about the scope of their authority or obligations, and report having done little since Hurricane Katrina to find or attract highly-qualified applicants, apart from distributing literature at job fairs, colleges, and universities.
The Department has been aware of deficiencies in its recruitment efforts, yet for years failed to act meaningfully to address them. Recently, NOPD has begun to make changes to its recruiting process to ensure a stronger pool of applicants is selected to attend the academy. Although the Department has a great deal of work ahead to attract the most highly-qualified workforce possible, we commend its recent focus on these efforts.
3. Training
The training NOPD has for the past several years provided to its officers is severely deficient in nearly every respect, compromising officer and public safety, effective crime reduction, and the credibility and reputation of the Department as a whole. Shortcomings at the recruit, field, and in-service stages of training have left NOPD officers ill-equipped to perform their duties in a safe, constitutional, and respectful manner. We found systemic problems in training of every type, including tactical, operational, legal, ethical, and professionalism training. Officers receive an insufficient amount of training—there has been almost no in-service training for the past five years—and the instruction officers do receive is often out-of date, conflicts with NOPD policies or current legal requirements, or fails to address officers’ most pressing training needs. Our investigation found direct links between inadequate training and serious, systemic problems in use of force; stops, searches, and arrests; supervision; interacting with and building partnerships with members of the community; and racial, ethnic, and gender bias in policing.
We found no disagreement that NOPD training is inadequate. NOPD officers of all ranks told us they want more and better training, and strongly expressed this sentiment in their responses to a recent NOPD employee survey. In that survey, only 24% of NOPD employees agreed that they have sufficient opportunities for training, and overwhelmingly reported that existing training needs improvement. NOPD leadership likewise has acknowledged that its training systems are in need of repair, and the Superintendent has prioritized the wholesale remaking of training in his organizational strategy to improve NOPD.
4. Supervision
Front line supervision, especially of officers patrolling and responding to calls in the field, is a lynchpin of effective and constitutional policing. Field supervisors provide the close and consistent supervision necessary to guide officers’ conduct and to help them learn from their
xiv

mistakes. They are in best position to recognize a problem with an officer’s conduct and intervene immediately to ameliorate or prevent harm. When a supervisor is on-scene and realizes that a patrol officer has made an arrest without probable cause, the supervisor can instruct the officer to release the arrestee and immediately counsel the officer about what the officer did wrong. When a community member is upset about how an officer responded to a call, a supervisor can immediately take a complaint—or sometimes address the concern to prevent a complaint. How a field supervisor conducts him or herself, and whether he/she requires adherence to policy and ethics, sets a tone of accountability and integrity—or not.
Field supervisors also are in the best position to ensure that street level crime prevention efforts are as effective as possible; they know how productive their officers are, and what they need to be more effective. Properly trained and deployed, field supervisors can identify the strengths and weaknesses of each officer under their command, adjusting their level and type of supervision accordingly.
NOPD fails to provide the supervision necessary to prevent or detect misconduct and ensure effective policing. Supervisors frequently sign off on arrest reports that fail to articulate probable cause, and conduct use of force investigations that are grossly deficient. They also frequently ignore obvious misconduct and poor officer performance in conducting internal investigations.
Our investigation further showed a lack of accountability throughout the chain of command sufficient to ensure that field sergeants are properly supervising their subordinates. Much of the work supervisors do requires review or approval by the chain of command. Commanders seem to take no notice of, much less hold accountable, supervisors who approve egregious uses of force without question, conduct obviously flawed investigations, sign off on clearly deficient arrest reports, or who simply do not supervise.
A number of systemic deficiencies within NOPD appear to contribute to this poor supervision. Supervisors are poorly trained and poorly guided by policy. The ratio of supervisors to officers (span of control) is too high, and unity of command (allowing for close and knowledgeable supervision by ensuring that each officer has one supervisor to hold them fully accountable) exists on paper only. Supervisory accountability is undermined by NOPD’s practice of broadly assigning supervisory responsibilities and then failing to ensure these responsibilities are carried out by anyone.
5. Paid Details
There are few aspects of NOPD more broadly troubling than its Paid Detail system. NOPD’s Detail system, as currently structured: 1) drastically undermines the quality of NOPD policing; 2) facilitates abuse and corruption by NOPD officers; 3) contributes to compromising officer fatigue; 4) contributes to inequitable policing by NOPD; and 5) acts as a financial drain on NOPD rather than fulfilling its potential as a source of revenue for the City and Department.
The Detail system is essentially a form of overtime work for officers. Officers may work ad hoc Details providing, for example, extra security for special events or individuals visiting
xv

New Orleans. Or an officer may have a regularly-scheduled Detail, such as being hired by a business to provide security in a retail establishment or by a neighborhood association to patrol the neighborhood. When on Detail, however, officers are paid and largely controlled by entities other than NOPD. Many police departments allow officers to work outside law-enforcement jobs, but few if any large police departments have a system of Details as entrenched and unregulated as in NOPD. Between August 2009 and July 2010, 69% of all officers, almost 1000 in all, submitted a request to work at least one Detail. This number includes 85% of all Lieutenants and 78% of all Captains. Virtually every officer works a Detail, wants to work a Detail, or at some point will have to rely on an officer who works a Detail. The effects of Details thus permeate the entire Department. It is widely acknowledged that NOPD’s Detail system is corrupting; as stated by one close observer of the Department, the paid Detail system may be the “aorta of corruption” within NOPD. Our interviews with NOPD officers, meetings with other New Orleans-based law enforcement agencies, criminal justice system stakeholders, and the public, revealed that NOPD’s Detail system was a significant contributing factor to both the perception and reality of NOPD as a dysfunctional organization.
In the last few months, Superintendent Serpas has begun to implement measures meant to correct and prevent some of the negative impact of the Detail system. In August 2010, the Superintendant banned cash payments. But officers are still expected to negotiate their compensation with the Detail employer and officers who coordinate Details still wield inordinate influence including, in some instances, over their superiors. In December 2010, the Superintendent initiated a program to try to centralize Detail information by setting up a single telephone number for all officers to call to report working a Detail, and a web-based application for officers to enter additional Detail information. While these are undoubtedly improvements, it is too early to assess whether they are effective and, regardless, they are a small part of the wholesale remaking of the Detail system that is necessary.
6. Performance Evaluations and Promotions
NOPD’s evaluation and promotion practices are deficient to the point that it may be impossible to correct patterns of constitutional misconduct without also correcting the failings of these systems. NOPD’s promotional system does not adequately assess or consistently reward the officers who are best able to police effectively and constitutionally. Promotional decisions do not adequately consider misconduct by officers or their ability to lead with integrity and diligence. Performance evaluations do not sufficiently assess officers’ conduct or value constitutional policing. As they currently function, NOPD’s performance evaluation and promotion systems erode public confidence in the Department and facilitate officers’ unconstitutional conduct.
People inside NOPD and in the broader New Orleans community view NOPD’s promotion and performance evaluation systems as broken. In November 2010, a NOPD employee satisfaction survey ranked promotions and performance evaluations among the areas about which employees expressed the most dissatisfaction. While a slight majority of respondents agreed that the Department punishes unethical behavior, a mere 17% agreed that the Department rewards ethical behavior. Research shows that departments that reward officers who display exemplary leadership qualities with promotion foster the growth of a values-based,
xvi

ethical culture in the department. The NOPD survey also found that only 13% of respondents believed that “promotions are handled fairly.”
Our review similarly showed significant problems with both NOPD’s performance evaluations and its system of promotions. NOPD’s performance evaluations do not assess an officer’s crime prevention skills and abilities. There are no specific goals for the officers, and no assessment of an officer’s progress in achieving stated goals. Likewise, there is no assessment of an officer’s ability to build effective community partnerships or problem-oriented policing efforts. According to City officials, the city-wide performance evaluations have not changed in 20 years and are badly in need of updating. Consistent with recommendations from outside reviews, Civil Service Commission staff and police officials reported a need for more taskspecific evaluations, but recognize that this would require the creation of different evaluations for different City departments, for which the City currently has allocated no funding. However, each department, including NOPD, already has the authority and ability to create their own performance evaluation overlay to the City-wide performance evaluation form. NOPD has not done this. In addition, training for supervisors on how to most effectively evaluate employees’ performance under the current system is insufficient, and performance evaluations are infrequent and intermittent, rather than part of an ongoing process. There is no formalized system of ongoing, documented, supervisory evaluation of subordinates’ work, and we saw very little evidence of informal evaluation.
Similarly, NOPD’s promotional system policies and practices are highly process related, too infrequently held, and include insufficient substantive assessment of candidates. NOPD’s promotional policies have not been revised in nearly ten years and, until very recently NOPD’s promotional exam had not been revised in years and was, by all accounts, woefully out of date. The infrequency of exams causes good officers to leave when they learn they have missed a promotion exam and it will be years before they have even an opportunity to compete for promotion. Infrequent exams mean also that officers who scored relatively low on the last exam are promoted over other officers who were not given a chance to compete.
Nor does NOPD’s current promotions system provide for appropriate assessment of promotional candidates. There is little consideration of community policing or ethics (reportedly, promotional candidates in the past “did not do so well” on the ethical scenarios that were incorporated into the exam). Current NOPD policy further undermines adequate consideration of an officer’s disciplinary history. By policy, only sustained violations for conduct with an incident date within the previous year of the promotion, and which resulted in a penalty greater than a Letter of Reprimand, are considered, and denial on even this ground appears discretionary.
We found that these problems directly impact NOPD’s ability to assess and promote officers who are effective and ethical.
7. Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
NOPD’s system for receiving, investigating, and resolving misconduct complaints, despite many strengths and recent improvements, does not function as an effective accountability
xvii

measure. Policies and practices for complaint intake do not ensure that complaints are complete and accurate, systematically exclude investigation of certain types of misconduct, and fail to track allegations of discriminatory policing. Field supervisors are not sufficiently trained or supported in conducting misconduct investigations. Deficiencies in policies, resources, training, and oversight weaken investigations and result in findings that are unsupported by the evidence.
Discipline and corrective action are meted out inconsistently and, too often, without sufficient consideration of the seriousness of the offense and its impact on the police-community relationship. Louisiana State law requiring that internal administrative investigations be completed within 60 days is laudable in intent, but in practice has allowed officers to commit egregious misconduct and get away with it. Apparent criminal misconduct by officers is inadequately investigated and has in the past too rarely been prosecuted.
There is a lack of transparency in the Civil Service Commission’s review of officer appeals of NOPD disciplinary decisions, making it difficult to fully assess whether troubling reversals of disciplinary decisions are due to the Commission’s failure to stay within the appropriate bounds of review, as is widely perceived. Our review of several years of Commission decisions indicates that, while there may be legitimate concerns about particular Commission decisions, significant weaknesses in NOPD’s investigation of officer misconduct, and in NOPD’s and the City’s defense of disciplinary decisions, unquestionably contribute to many poor outcomes.
These deficiencies render NOPD’s system for investigating and responding to allegations of officer misconduct ineffective at changing officer behavior or holding officers responsible for their actions. Consequently, the system has little legitimacy in the Department or in the broader New Orleans community.
NOPD is making efforts to improve its complaint investigation process. The Department has made innovative changes, such as appointing a civilian to lead PIB, and has implemented long-overdue corrections to basic policies, including clarifying an employee’s duty to be honest and truthful and to cooperate with investigations; making dismissal the presumptive penalty for not being truthful; and requiring employees who become aware of misconduct to immediately report it to a supervisor. These changes mark a good beginning; however neither the public nor the police have confidence in NOPD’s current system for investigating and responding to allegations of police misconduct. A fundamental transformation of the processes for investigating and responding to allegations of police misconduct must occur in order to regain the trust of the public and officers, and correct the pattern of constitutional misconduct we observed.
8. Community Oriented Policing
Community policing strategies balance reactive responses to calls for service with thoughtful and proactive problem-solving. This problem-solving is achieved in large part by forging robust relationships in the community. The Department’s policies, training, and tactics support neither a community policing orientation, nor the ultimate goal of proactively addressing problems to reduce and prevent crime, rather than merely reacting to it. Within NOPD, the
xviii

concept of community policing is poorly understood and implemented only superficially. Outside the Department, community members, especially members of racial, ethnic, and language minorities, and the LGBT communities, expressed to us their deep distrust of and sense of alienation from the police. This crisis of confidence and credibility serves as both a barrier to an effective community oriented policing program, and as a compelling reason to prioritize its implementation.
NOPD has publicly acknowledged the need to repair and cultivate community partnerships to more effectively fight crime and increase respect for police officers throughout the New Orleans community. Indeed, in August 2010, the Superintendent released a 65-point plan to reform the Department, which opened with a commitment to prioritize community policing and to “listen, collaborate, and respond proactively.” The Department has implemented or announced plans to implement a number of community outreach programs, including: citizen callbacks regarding quality of service; Community Outreach Coordinator sergeants in each district; an expanded citizen academy; a partnership with clergy; and a program for bilingual outreach on public safety issues. While these initiatives are either in the planning stages or too new to have allowed for close assessment, we commend the Department’s stated interest and focus on genuinely assessing current attitudes toward the police, reaching out to diverse segments of the City, and enhancing community relations.
Nonetheless, considerable work lies ahead if community policing is to be a central feature of NOPD’s culture, decision-making, and organizational structure, consistent with the Department’s commitment. The Department does not adequately encourage or promote meaningful partnership, interaction, and communication with diverse stakeholders, which is critical to learning about and collaboratively addressing problems in the community. Indeed, community groups nearly uniformly said that the police rarely reach out to them; one member of a Vietnamese community organization reported that “[a] lot of the young Vietnamese people who get shot in this community, we know who shot them but the New Orleans police don’t do anything. They don’t talk to us. They don’t build community relationships.” We found that some NOPD officers tend not to view members of the public as potential collaborative partners or sources of information and insight about their communities, but rather as potential problems, cultivating an “us vs. them” atmosphere of mutual distrust.
NOPD has also failed to implement policies, training, and accountability measures to truly integrate and embed community- and problem-oriented policing principles into each aspect of its management, structure, and use of resources. Consequently, few in the Department believe they bear any responsibility for implementing community policing strategies, or even have a clear sense of what specific strategies would look like. Further, officers consistently reported that pressure to conduct stops and arrests diverts attention and resources from quality arrests, community engagement, and more considered problem-solving.
Now that NOPD has identified community policing as a priority, it will need to ensure that change is sustained and more than superficial. This will require review of the Department’s leadership, policies, climate and culture, systems of accountability, training and deployment of personnel, to ensure that they reflect and integrate community-oriented and problem-oriented strategies and practices.
xix

9. Officer Assistance and Support
Officer assistance and support services are a significant component of a department’s accountability system. The demeanor, judgment, and physical abilities that make an officer effective in carrying out law enforcement duties can be dangerously impaired when officers work under inordinate stress levels or while grappling with symptoms of mental illness. Police executives owe a duty to their community and officers to provide the services necessary to ensure the mental and physical wellness of their officers. NOPD is failing to provide such critical officer assistance and support services.
Stress is not an excuse for police misconduct, but officers who are mentally and physically fit generally are more productive; use fewer sick days; and importantly, may receive fewer complaints regarding demeanor or use of force. There is little question that NOPD is in need of officer assistance and support services. We found that a comprehensive system of officer assistance and support services for NOPD officers has never been in place, and that efforts to create a system have been faltering, even after Hurricane Katrina underscored the need. NOPD can better serve its officers and protect the public by implementing a centralized and comprehensive range of officer assistance and support services to address the stress and mental health needs of its employees.
10. Interrogation Practices
NOPD’s custodial interrogation practices reflect many of the same problems we found throughout NOPD: inadequate policies, poor or non-existent training, weak supervision and accountability, and inadequate facilities and equipment. As a result of these problems, NOPD does not adequately use custodial interrogations to build cases. NOPD detectives conduct relatively few interrogations and the interrogations they do conduct are often perfunctory.
We found that NOPD’s policies about what constitutes a constitutional interrogation are inadequate, as is NOPD’s training and selection of detectives. NOPD practice further undermines the effectiveness and integrity of NOPD interrogations. Audio and video recordings of interrogations reflect that detectives do not conduct, or at least record, full interrogations. Documentation of interrogations is poor due to a number of deficient practices and systems. Most districts lack dedicated space and video recording equipment; officers only record a final summary statement by subjects and/or witnesses; officers generally destroy notes from unrecorded portions of interviews with subjects and witnesses after completing investigative reports; and taped interviews in the Districts are preserved inconsistently, if at all. Taken together, these deficiencies not only undermine NOPD’s efforts to build strong criminal cases, but could also facilitate and hide constitutional violations of criminal suspects’ rights. Indeed, we found credible allegations that such violations have occurred.
While we did not reach a conclusion on whether there is a pattern or practice of unconstitutional interrogations at NOPD, we did find that as NOPD increases its efforts to build more effective cases and improve the reliability and integrity of its criminal investigations,
xx

current interrogation policies, training, and practices should be improved to ensure constitutional and effective interrogations.
11. Community Oversight
The City of New Orleans and NOPD have a long history of efforts to provide effective civilian oversight of the Department. For decades, the City’s Office of Municipal Investigation served as an alternative to NOPD’s PIB, accepting and investigating individual complaints of misconduct against NOPD officers (and other City employees), before it was defunded in 2008. A thoughtful and comprehensive report in 2001 by the Police-Civilian Review Task Force, which was comprised of well-regarded and prominent community advocates as well as NOPD representatives, considered whether and what type of civilian oversight might be appropriate for NOPD. The Task Force determined that an Independent Monitor who would review policies, procedures, complaint patterns, and the quality of complaint investigations, as well as make regular reports to elected officials, NOPD and the public, would “create the impetus and the focus for correcting problems,” “empower citizens with the information necessary to effect change,” and would in this way “increase the ability of citizens and the NOPD to identify, address, and correct problems, thereby improving the department and building citizen confidence and support.” Report of the Police-Civilian Review Task Force at 5. As noted in the Task Force report, this type of “quality control monitoring” has been used in other communities and has had beneficial results. Id. at 6.
Almost a decade later, in August 2009, New Orleans created the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”) as an independent, civilian police oversight agency. According to the IPM, its mission is to: improve cooperation and trust between the community and NOPD through objective review of police misconduct investigations; provide outreach to the New Orleans community; and make thoughtful policy recommendations to the NOPD and the City Council. The IPM recently reached an agreement with NOPD to help ensure it has access to the information it needs to fulfill these responsibilities. Last year, the IPM volunteered to use its own funds to develop a new early warning system for NOPD, and is currently working with NOPD to implement this new system. We have met with the IPM’s Police Monitor several times and have been impressed with her dedication to building genuine reform and a constructive relationship with NOPD and the community.
In addition, with assistance from DOJ’s Community Relations Services, community leaders in New Orleans have contributed significant time and effort to develop a community advisory board in conjunction with NOPD and the Mayor’s office. This board would serve as a sustainable mechanism for ongoing dialogue to understand and address concerns from the community as well as opportunities for the community and police department to work together to achieve common goals.
There are myriad types of civilian oversight and each is capable of improving policecommunity relations, preventing unconstitutional conduct, and helping to ensure a constructive response when such misconduct does occur. Because the type of oversight appropriate for any given community is circumstantial, deference should be given to the oversight mechanisms a community has chosen for itself. Regardless of the type of oversight chosen, it is critical that
xxi

oversight mechanisms be sufficiently resourced and empowered. We have some concerns regarding whether the IPM has received sufficient resources and latitude to carry out its duties effectively. Adequate staffing, as well as the ability and authority to promptly obtain internal NOPD records on officer conduct, will be critical to the IPM’s success as an oversight mechanism. Additionally, while it is still in a nascent state, we are encouraged by the steps to develop a community advisory board and hopeful that this will be an important bridge in communications between NOPD and parts of the community most concerned about police misconduct.
When combined with practices that ensure appropriate transparency in police department decisions related to misconduct and tactics, and with tools to measure, assess, and respond to changing community attitudes towards policing over time, civilian oversight can help create a powerful form of community engagement that will ensure that reforms are sustained over time, even after court-ordered oversight has ended.
C. Summary of Recommendations
In conjunction with our experts, we developed recommendations for correcting the deficiencies that led to the patterns and practices of constitutional violations we observed. These recommendations are listed in the attachment to this Report.
The recommendations center on our key findings related to unconstitutional policing and its causes, and concern:
• Policies and procedures in each area we reviewed; • Training for recruits, new officers, experienced officers, and supervisors; • Supervision for officers in the field, including patrol and task force officers, and
for detectives; • Mechanisms of accountability, including force reporting and investigation,
complaint intake and investigation, and discipline; • Tracking and analyzing data to improve police practices, including an early
warning system; • Moving from policing to increase the number of arrests to an integration of
community and problem-oriented policing strategies; • Measures to address discriminatory policing; • Paid Details; • Officer assistance; • Recruitment, performance evaluations, and promotions; and • Community Oversight
Conclusion
The City of New Orleans took a critical step by asking the Civil Rights Division to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of the Police Department in an effort to bring about the “complete transformation” of NOPD. The Department of Justice’s investigation, involving extensive community engagement and in-depth review of NOPD practices, has
xxii

provided a fuller understanding of the systemic problems within the Department and the extent of the resulting harm. This understanding serves as the foundation upon which to build sustainable reform that will reduce crime and prevent crime more effectively, police all parts of the New Orleans’ community fairly, respect the rights of all New Orleans’ residents and visitors, and prepare and protect officers. Past reform efforts underscore the need for long term commitment and meaningful engagement of all key stakeholders to fundamentally and permanently transform the Department in this way. The incredible optimism and desire for change expressed by the people we met tells us that this transformation is within reach. We look forward to working with the City, the Police Department and the broader New Orleans community to ensure that this effort is successful.
xxiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In addition to the cooperation and assistance of Mayor Mitch Landrieu and his staff and Superintendant Ronal Serpas and his officers, we received important contributions from other public stakeholders, including the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, the Orleans Public Defenders, the New Orleans Civil Service Commission and the City’s Office of the Independent Police Monitor. We also appreciate the willingness of members of the State and Municipal Courts, New Orleans City Council, Louisiana State Legislature, Business Council of New Orleans & the River Region, New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, and the New Orleans Crime Coalition to meet with us and share their perspectives. Likewise, the insights and experiences shared by the many interested individuals and community groups with whom we met throughout our investigation were invaluable.
We worked closely with United States Attorney Jim Letten and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which provided extensive assistance to Division attorneys throughout the investigation. DOJ’s Community Relations Service (“CRS”) coordinated many of the community meetings, working closely with grassroots New Orleans community organizations and enabling community members to express their concerns and proposals for improving public safety in New Orleans. Additionally, Ellen Scrivner, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, and a former police deputy superintendent and chief psychologist, and Steve Parker, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, and a former police officer, each provided extensive assistance.
During our investigation, we coordinated closely with other components of DOJ, in part to enhance our understanding of NOPD and the City of New Orleans, and in part to identify areas of need in which DOJ had already provided or could immediately begin to provide assistance. We worked with the Office of Justice Programs; the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; the Office on Violence Against Women; the Office on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Access to Justice Initiative. We also spoke to supervisors with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the United States Marshal Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, about ways to improve federal-local cooperation and coordination. The National Virtual Translation Center expanded the reach of our work by translating the Executive Summary of this Report into Spanish and Vietnamese.
This collaboration has allowed us to provide the City of New Orleans with substantial assistance. The City of New Orleans has availed itself of a number of other DOJ criminal justice system trainings, programs and initiatives, including but not limited to: A Comprehensive Homicide Assessment (U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Justice Assistance (“BJA”)); An Integrated Justice Information System Technology Assessment (BJA); Conflict Resolution, Sensitivity and Cultural Competency Training (CRS); Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault First Responder Training (OVW); an Orleans Parish Prison Jail-size Facilities Assessment (ATJ); and Integrated Ballistic Information System Training (ATF). We further provided assistance that allowed NOPD to begin addressing its considerable backlog of rape kits awaiting testing (NIJ/OVC).
It is our hope that as we continue to work together to develop and implement these initiatives, we will help New Orleans create a criminal justice system that is both more effective and respectful of civil rights.
xxiv

GENERAL METHODOLOGY The investigative team consisted of lawyers and other staff from the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section. Throughout our investigation, our understanding was informed by the expertise of law enforcement professionals (current and former police chiefs and supervisors) and other experts working alongside Division attorneys. These professionals provided in-depth knowledge about how to detect and respond to law enforcement challenges. We gathered information through many interviews and meetings with NOPD officers, supervisors and command staff, as well as members of the public, City and State officials, and other community stakeholders. Our investigation included on- and off-site review of documents, including policies and procedures, training materials, incident reports, use of force reports, crime investigation files, data collected by the Department, complaints of misconduct, and misconduct investigations. We also participated in ride-alongs with officers and supervisors, attended COMSTAT meetings, observed police activity, and met with representatives of police fraternal organizations and several larger group officer “round tables” to elicit officer concerns and ideas about how to improve services provided by NOPD. We participated in over 40 community meetings, including meetings held at our request as well as regularly scheduled community meetings, including New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council (“NONPACC”) and Rape Crisis Network meetings. We met with judges from the State and Municipal Courts and members of the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Independent Police Monitor, City Council, Louisiana State Legislators, the Business Council of New Orleans & the River Region, the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, and the New Orleans Crime Coalition.
xxv

ABBREVIATIONS

NOPD DOJ ADA ATF ATJ AVL BOP BJA CAD CoCo COPS CVSA DWI DA ECD FBI FIC FOP ICO LEP LGBT MCTU NOFJC NONPACC NOPJF OC OIS OJJDP OJP OVW PANO PD PIB PPEP RAR SOD UCR UOF

New Orleans Police Department United States Department of Justice Assistant District Attorney U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives U.S. DOJ, Access to Justice Initiative Automatic Vehicle Location Black Organization of Police (NOPD Fraternal Organization) U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Justice Assistance Computer-Aided Dispatch Community Outreach Coordinating Sergeant U.S. DOJ, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Computerized Voice Stress Machine Driving While Intoxicated District Attorney Electronic Control Device U.S. DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation Field Interview Card Fraternal Order of Police (NOPD Fraternal Organization) Integrity Control Officer Limited English Proficient/Proficiency Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit New Orleans Family Justice Center New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation Oleoresin Capsicum Officer Involved Shooting U.S. DOJ, Office on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. DOJ, Office of Justice Programs U.S. DOJ, Office on Violence against Women Police Association of New Orleans Public Defender Public Integrity Bureau Personnel Performance Enhancement Program Resisting Arrest Report Special Operations Division Uniform Crime Reports Use of Force

xxvi

II. USE OF FORCE
We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional force.
A. Legal Standards
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Force used by a law enforcement officer while conducting an arrest or investigatory stop is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment, and use of excessive or unnecessary force during an arrest or stop is considered an “unreasonable” seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989).
The assessment of reasonableness, and therefore constitutionality, of an officer’s use of force is an objective one. Just as an officer’s bad intentions will not render an objectively reasonable use of force unconstitutional, an objectively unreasonable use of force is unconstitutional, even where the officer had good intentions. Id. at 397. Judging the reasonableness of the force used to effect a seizure requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id. at 396. The analysis “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case” to determine whether the force used was reasonable. Goodman v. Harris County, 571 F.3d 388, 397 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).
The most significant and “intrusive” use of force is the use of deadly force, which can result in the taking of human life, “frustrat[ing] the interest of . . . society in judicial determination of guilt and punishment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985). Use of deadly force is permissible only when an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or another person. Id. at 11. An officer may employ deadly force against someone who is attempting to evade arrest only where there is probable cause to believe: 1) a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction of serious physical harm; 2) deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect’s escape; and 3) if feasible, the officer has warned the suspect. Id. at 11-12. In the words of the Supreme Court, “[i]t is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.” Id. at 11.
B. Findings
1. Overview of Force Findings
While police-civilian interactions only rarely require the use of force, there are times when officers must use force to enforce the law, prevent serious injury, or protect life. The Constitution requires that officers use force only when necessary and that, when necessary, the force used is reasonable under the circumstances. Our review showed that officers in NOPD routinely use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution and NOPD
- 1 -

policy. We noted particular problems with NOPD’s use of deadly force; force against restrained individuals, including retaliatory force; and the use of canines.
Our investigation did not include consideration of widely reported allegations of officer misconduct related to NOPD’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Many of these incidents have been, or are currently being, prosecuted by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. We deliberately kept our civil investigation completely separate from the criminal investigation and prosecution of any NOPD officer, and this Report does not discuss any incident that is the subject of ongoing federal criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, our investigation, which covered incidents that occurred within the past two years and assessed practices as they exist currently, revealed a clear pattern of unconstitutional uses of force by NOPD officers.
Our review of officer-involved shootings within just the last two years revealed many instances in which NOPD officers used deadly force contrary to NOPD policy or law. We found a pattern of unreasonable less lethal force as well. We found, for example, that NOPD’s canines were uncontrollable to the point where they repeatedly attacked their own handlers, compelling us to recommend immediate suspension of NOPD’s use of canines to apprehend suspects. We found that officers used force against individuals, including persons in handcuffs, in circumstances that appeared not only unnecessary but deliberately retaliatory. We reviewed instances in which NOPD officers used significant force against mentally ill persons where it appeared that no use of force was justified. Our review showed further that officers likely report only a small fraction of the force they actually use.
While many of the instances of unreasonable force we reviewed cannot be explained or excused by a lack of policies or training, it is also true that police departments have the ability and responsibility to prevent and detect the use of unreasonable force by their officers. The components of an effective and accountable use of force system are largely settled. Police departments must ensure appropriate training in how and when to use force, and provide the supervision necessary for sufficient oversight of officers’ use of force. Departments must also provide officers clear and consistent guidance on when and how to use and report force, in the form of clear and comprehensive policies. Departments must implement systems to ensure that force is consistently reported and investigated thoroughly and fairly. The force investigation serves as the basis for reviewing the force incident to determine whether the officer acted both lawfully and consistent with departmental policy, as well as to determine whether the incident raises policy, training, tactical or equipment concerns that need to be addressed for officer and civilian safety. Use of force aggregate data and trends should be monitored to enable a department to identify and address emerging problems before they result in significant or widespread harm. We discuss below deficiencies in each of these components of an effective and accountable use of force system, including inadequate: 1) use of force policies; 2) use of force training; 3) force reporting and investigation; 4) use of force review, including reviews of officer-involved shootings; and 5) tracking, analysis, and response to use of force data and trends, including use of an early warning system.
As detailed below, we found that NOPD for years has acted with indifference to whether its officers are using force unconstitutionally and that, as a result, none of the components
- 2 -

necessary to prevent unreasonable force are functioning. NOPD has allowed the systems and practices that were once in place to prevent and detect excessive force to languish. NOPD has failed to ensure that policies are accurate, up to date, and consistent, and has not provided adequate force-related academy or in-service training. NOPD has tolerated and condoned widespread and routine violation of policy and has allowed supervisors and commanders to ignore mechanisms previously established to investigate and review use of force and respond to problematic incidents or trends.
We observed no indication that supervisors or commanders take steps necessary to ensure that officers report force, despite evidence that force is widely underreported at NOPD. Nor does NOPD conduct meaningful investigation and review of any type of force. We discuss below specific incidents and types of unreasonable force that NOPD consistently has failed to investigate. We found that the deficiencies in NOPD’s investigations of officer-involved shootings were, in some instances, so blatant and severe that the mishandling appeared intentional. We found further that NOPD’s oversight of its officers’ use of deadly force has been so perfunctory that until we inquired, NOPD did not know where some officer-involved shooting investigation files were located and did not initially provide officer-involved shooting investigative files for approximately one-half of the incidents that occurred during the time period we were reviewing. Several officer-involved shooting investigations are still missing.
As a result of these deficiencies, there is little accountability for officers who use force contrary to law or NOPD policy. We found repeated instances where officers used force, including deadly force, in a manner that plainly contradicted NOPD policy or the Constitution, and that endangered the lives of civilian bystanders and other police officers, yet no one in the chain-of-command held officers accountable.
We fully recognize the many dangers faced by law enforcement officers and that officers sometimes have to use force to enforce the law, defend themselves, or to protect others. However, NOPD’s use of force practices present a significant threat to public and officer safety, and create a substantial obstacle to building the strong community partnerships necessary to prevent crime. As we were completing our investigation, NOPD began to make significant changes to force policies, including how officers will be trained to use force, and how force will be reported, investigated, and reviewed. These changes are urgently needed and long overdue. They are also only a small part of the comprehensive reform necessary to ensure that NOPD officers use force in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.
2. Unreasonable Use of Force
The prevalence and nature of the force-related misconduct we observed indicates that NOPD officers’ use of unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution is widespread. The incidents of unreasonable force we reviewed reflected generally poor tactics and lack of adherence to all use of force policies, rather than problems with force of a particular type or in particular circumstances. Moreover, within NOPD, unless there is an injury requiring medical attention, there is little to prevent an officer from not reporting force, and it does in fact appear that a significant number of force incidents are unreported at NOPD. We noted particular
- 3 -

problems in some areas, including the use of less lethal force,2 particularly against restrained persons; the use of canines; and the use of deadly force.3
a) Less Lethal Force, Force against Restrained Persons, and Retaliatory Force
Our review of non-deadly use of force incidents included a review of almost 100 NOPD Resisting Arrest Reports (“RARs”) documenting uses of force by NOPD officers between January 2009 and May 2010.4 We found that in a number of instances officers used force that appeared unreasonable in light of the described resistance and other relevant circumstances. In many of the incidents we reviewed, the resulting injuries were inconsistent with the force as described and this inconsistency was not explained. There was no indication that the reviewing supervisor probed the apparent inconsistencies or established critical facts, and the report was approved as written.
In some instances it was not necessary to look beyond the officer’s own description of force to determine that the force used appeared excessive. In one incident, an officer at central lock-up punched an apparently handcuffed arrestee in the jaw with a closed fist after the arrestee spit on the back of the officer’s head. After being punched in the face by the officer, the arrestee fell back and hit his head on the wall, sustaining what the RAR described as a “small laceration.” The arrestee was then “put in the back of the [transport] wagon,” where, according to the RAR, he began “rolling around,” cutting himself above the right eye. The arrestee was taken to the hospital for treatment, where a sergeant arrived and had other officers take over to “remove [the] officer [who used force] from the situation.” The supervisor approved the officer’s admitted use of force, even though, if used as described by the officer, the force was clearly retaliatory and excessive. The supervisor did not document that the arrestee was handcuffed, which under any set of police practices he would have been, and did not probe any of the subsequent injuries. The
2 NOPD uses the term “Less than lethal” to describe intermediate level force. In our view, the term “less lethal” is more accurate and provides clearer guidance to officers. “Less lethal” is a term of art that refers to weapons and tactics that are designed to temporarily disable or stop a suspect without killing, thereby providing law enforcement with an alternative to lethal force. These weapons and tactics should not be referred to as “less than lethal” because they have resulted in fatalities and in general have a greater potential for lethality than lower level uses of force such as, for example, soft hands or hard hands.
3 Our review of NOPD force was based almost entirely upon information provided by NOPD, primarily reports written by NOPD officers and ratified by NOPD supervisors. We did not “look behind” these materials by, for example, interviewing the individuals against whom force was used or the involved officers, or by reviewing primary source evidence such as audio or video recordings or other forensic evidence. Because our findings are largely based on NOPD’s self-reporting, it is reasonable to believe that further inquiry would reveal additional problems with NOPD’s use of force.
4 We reviewed 96 RARs involving force incidents that occurred between January 1, 2009, and May 31, 2010. This sample included an over-representation of reports involving Electronic Control Device (ECD) discharges. During the time period we reviewed, NOPD had a greater organizational commitment to, as well as clearer protocols about, reporting ECD use. Recognizing this, we make no finding regarding whether ECDs are over-used within NOPD as compared to other weapons. We did, however, for each ECD incident reviewed, assess whether the use of the ECD in that instance was justifiable.
- 4 -

supervisor failed even to document the injuries, interview any witnesses, or make any attempt to determine what force was used and how that force resulted in the described injuries.
The above described incident raises also the issue of retaliatory force by NOPD officers. Based on our review of this incident and others, the use of retaliatory force, which is by definition unconstitutional, appears widely accepted within the Department. Indeed, when one NOPD officer reacted calmly after being spit on by another NOPD officer he had stopped for DWI, fellow NOPD officers told the arresting officer he was a coward for not at least punching the officer, according to reports of the arresting officer’s testimony in court in December 2010. It is reasonable to believe that if officers find it appropriate to hit another officer in retaliation for disrespectful behavior, and if an officer will be ridiculed for not using unnecessary force in such situations, that NOPD officers will be at least as likely to use unlawful retaliatory force against civilians who show similar disrespect.
We found that the use of significant force against restrained persons by NOPD officers is relatively frequent and approved with little inquiry by supervisors. The use of significant force against handcuffed suspects should always be subjected to great scrutiny because such force is generally unnecessary. Particularly where officers repeatedly justify force against restrained suspects on losing control of the suspect, as they do at NOPD, officer-safety and accountability demand that an agency immediately investigate and then either correct dangerously poor tactics, or hold accountable officers found to have claimed falsely to have lost control of a suspect.
The reports we reviewed indicated that instead of increased scrutiny, supervisors generally accepted without question officers’ loss-of-control justification for using significant force. In the incidents we reviewed, there was no clear explanation of how officers lost control of the individual or why the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. In one instance, for example, two officers deployed an Electronic Control Device (“ECD”)5 against a handcuffed arrestee who reportedly attempted to flee after being arrested for drug offenses and possession of a firearm. When he was taken to the hospital, the arrestee was treated for injuries that included a broken nose, as well as abrasions, bruises, and swelling. Despite the level of injuries and the fact that the man was handcuffed during at least part of this use of force, there was no real investigation, or even report, of the incident. The RAR, which is supposed to be written by the sergeant and incorporate the sergeant’s investigation of the incident, and the Incident Report, which is supposed to be written by the officer, are identical (a frequent occurrence in our review). Neither indicates how the suspect was able to escape; how he sustained a broken nose; or why a lesser force option was not available. In another incident, officers deployed an ECD against a handcuffed man while re-apprehending him after a foot chase. The officers were arresting him for auto burglary and he had already been apprehended once after a foot chase (any force used to effect the first apprehension was not reported). The officers deployed an ECD when the handcuffed man “struggled” during the re-apprehension. The officers did not explain what force they used to apprehend the suspect the first time; how a handcuffed subject had managed to escape from them; the nature of the resistance they encountered justifying the use of
5 We use the term ECD (Electronic Control Device) because this is the term used in NOPD policy. Other common terms for the weapon more commonly known by the brand name TASER, include Conducted Energy Device (“CED”) and Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”).
- 5 -

an ECD; or what injuries, if any, the man sustained. The reviewing sergeant did not interview the subject, or in any way investigate these issues.
In other instances, significant force, including ECD force, was used on restrained individuals where the circumstances, as described by the involved officers themselves, did not justify the level of force they used. In one such incident, an officer used his ECD to drive-stun6 a handcuffed woman being arrested for public intoxication after she “attempted to strike [an] officer with [her] body” while several other officers were attempting to put her in the back of a police vehicle. There is no indication that any lesser degree of force was attempted or that the level of resistance required use of this level of force. Rather, the incident report states, “[d]ue to the subject not following any of the officers commands she was drive tazed by [the officer].” As described by the officers, the force used was excessive. There is no indication that the sergeant reviewing the force questioned why officers did not attempt a lesser degree of force, or why basic evidence, such as witness interviews, was not gathered. In a similar incident, three officers patrolling in one vehicle used their ECD in drive-stun mode twice against a handcuffed man who was being arrested for driving with a suspended license, so that they could more easily retrieve marijuana that the handcuffed man was attempting to hide. Using an ECD to retrieve evidence, particularly under the circumstances described in the RAR, is unreasonable.
We also reviewed instances in which NOPD officers unreasonably deployed ECDs in circumstances that increased the potential lethality of the ECD. In one incident, for example, officers deployed an ECD against an individual riding a bicycle who had been shining a handheld flashlight into the windows of vehicles parked on the street and fled when officers approached him. The Incident Report (but not the RAR) states that the ECD struck the bicyclist in the back. The individual “immediately stopped pedaling and released the bike.” There is no description of the injuries the subject incurred, only that “the subject was transported to university hospital for medical attention, then transported to central lock-up to be booked accordingly.” It is contrary to accepted police practice to deploy an ECD against an individual riding a bike, as falling off a bike with no motor control (and thus no ability to break a fall by putting hands out, etc.) creates a risk of serious, potentially lethal, injury. In the circumstances described by the officers in their reports, this use of force was excessive. It also violated NOPD policy, which states that “[p]roper consideration and care should be taken when deploying the ECD on subjects who are in an elevated position or in other circumstances where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.” See Ops. Man. Chapter 1.7.1.
b) Canines
At the time of our investigation, NOPD’s canines and their handlers were so poorly trained that handlers were not able to adequately control their canines, substantially increasing the risk that canines would bite individuals, even after those individuals were complying or trying to comply with officers’ orders. Our on-site observation of each dog and its handler undertaking drills that are routine at other police departments revealed that some dogs were almost completely uncontrollable and the rest were not consistently controllable. One dog
6 The drive-stun function of an ECD, also known as “pain compliance” mode, delivers non-incapacitating pain through direct contact of the ECD with the body.
- 6 -

attacked its handler twice over the period of a few hours while we were on site in October 2010. During our review of documents, we learned that there were at least three additional incidents between December 2009 and October 2010 where NOPD canines bit NOPD officers. Our review indicated that NOPD canines bite subjects approximately six out of ten times they apprehended a suspect—over twice as high as the three out of ten rate one would expect to see in a well-run canine unit.7 NOPD’s own analyses found that NOPD canines bite subjects more than 68% of the time they apprehend a suspect.8 Especially concerning was the level of obedience demonstrated in an exercise termed “recall.” In this exercise, a dog is taken off leash and ordered to attack an officer in a protective suit. After the dog has been released and is charging the subject, the officer commands the dog to stop the attack. It is essential that a canine/handler team be able to perform this exercise with precision. Many of the handlers were unable to recall their dog during the exercise and most had never previously executed this exercise.
Our observations indicated that the handlers’ inability to control their dogs was a result of inadequate training and supervision rather than poor social disposition of the dogs (with the exception of one dog). We learned that none of NOPD’s canines were certified to engage in criminal apprehension by any nationally recognized organization, and that there was no other assessment in place to provide adequate assurance of the Canine Unit’s proper training and conduct. NOPD policy requires that canine teams attend two days of training per month, which comports with the industry standard of 8 hours every four weeks, or 16 hours every 4-6 weeks. NOPD policy also calls for canine handlers to maintain their own training records and, as a result, NOPD does not centrally maintain training records for its canines or their handlers. The Canine Unit was unable to provide any record of any dog’s initial certification or of any subsequent recertification or training. Canine handlers informed us that, they had only trained with the canine trainer twice during the calendar year, contrary to industry standard and NOPD policy. Moreover, the Canine Unit’s current trainer lacks sufficient training, experience, and certification to train the dogs and their handlers, and the Unit as a whole lacks supervision. The Unit’s current supervisor appeared dedicated and well-meaning but was unfamiliar with conventional training practices and unaware of what training the dogs under his supervision have.
We found also that canine deployments and apprehensions are so poorly documented that appropriate oversight is not possible. When an apprehension results in a bite, an RAR is completed and approved by the sergeant supervising the Canine Unit. We reviewed 52 canine RARs covering the period from January 2009 through March 2010 and found every report deficient. These RARs were extremely short and used boilerplate language that was not tailored
7 We base this 30%—or less—bite rate on the opinion of our canine expert as well as review of related research and case law. See, e.g., Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1989) (recounting expert testimony that “less than thirty percent of apprehensions should, on average, result in a bite” in a “properly trained and supervised canine unit”).
8 The information NOPD provided regarding bite ratio reflected an inaccurate understanding of how to calculate bite ratios. In addition to the information noted above, in response to a request for their canine unit’s “bite ratio,” NOPD informed us that their canines bit subjects 41 times in 109 deployments. It is widely accepted that when calculating a bite ratio, the number of apprehensions, not deployments, must be used as the denominator. Using deployments as the denominator decreases reliability, as “deployment” can be more widely defined than can “apprehension” and creates an incentive to deploy one’s canine unnecessarily.
- 7 -

to the specific incident and did not describe with particularity the events leading up to the decision to deploy the canine. Such language included that the canine “apprehended the subject,” that the subject “received minor dog bites,” and that the canine “made physical contact” with the subject. Particularly since the handlers are not required to write Incident Reports or otherwise document their canines’ use of force first-hand, it is not clear from where the sergeant obtained the information that is contained within the RAR. None of the reports described the nature or severity of the wounds and no photographs were taken to document injuries received. There was no indication that the sergeant who approved the use of force reviewed any of the corresponding Incident Reports.
The only reporting requirement of the Canine Unit is contained within the “New Orleans Police Department K-9 Unit Policy and Operating Procedures.” It requires that, when a canine bites a suspect during an apprehension, “a departmental ‘USE OF FORCE’ report shall be completed and distributed by Canine Unit Supervisor within a 24 hour period.” The key term “Use of Force report” is never defined, but use of this term indicates that this policy has not been substantively updated since at least before NOPD began using RARs rather than Use of Force reports. Canine patrol policy specifies that “canine officers shall complete only those reports required by the Canine Unit.” Ops. Man. Ch. 41.22. Based on the documentation we reviewed, it appears that when a Canine Unit conducts a search and no bite results, the handler subsequently fills out a form entitled “N.O.P.D. Patrol K-9 Data,” which is then approved by the Unit Commander. However, there is no written policy requirement that this documentation be completed, and therefore no accountability for failing to do so, raising concerns about whether this reporting is completed consistently.
Our concerns regarding NOPD’s canine program were serious enough that we immediately asked the Superintendent to suspend the use of canines for suspect apprehension until NOPD was able to ensure that the canines and their handlers were properly trained and able to apprehend suspects lawfully and without unnecessary injury. We further recommended that each canine be assessed for suitability for criminal apprehension work. To the Superintendent’s credit, he immediately suspended the use of canines for criminal apprehensions. We have been working, and will continue to work, with NOPD to implement both short and long term remedies to NOPD’s canine program.
c) Officer-Involved Shootings
Our review of NOPD officer-involved shootings revealed unconstitutional uses of deadly force, repeated violations of NOPD policy, and critical officer safety issues.9
Many of the officer-involved shooting incidents we reviewed involved shooting at vehicles in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force or were contrary to NOPD policy. Shooting at vehicles is generally a poor tactical choice because it is difficult to fire effectively; if the driver is disabled by the shot, the vehicle becomes a potentially more
9 We reviewed all identified officer-involved shootings for the time period covering January 2009-May 2010. We were provided with 46 reports that involved an officer discharging a firearm during this time period. Of those, we analyzed 27. The remaining nineteen consisted of five accidental discharges, thirteen shootings at dogs, and one incident in which an officer discharged his weapon to escape a vehicle after an accident.
- 8 -

dangerous unguided missile; and there is a high risk of significant injury or death to bystanders. NOPD’s Use of Force policy acknowledges these dangers and states that, “Police Officers shall not discharge a firearm from a moving vehicle or at a moving vehicle, unless the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force, other than the vehicle, against the member or another person, and such action is necessary for self-defense or to protect the other person.” See Ops. Man. Ch. 1.2.
Nonetheless, we reviewed a number of incidents in which NOPD officers fired their weapons at moving vehicles in direct violation of this policy, in some instances after the vehicle had passed by, at which point the use of lethal force was not reasonable under the circumstances. In several instances, officers shot at vehicles after the officers had placed themselves or their squad cars directly in front of fleeing vehicles, a practice contrary to sound tactics and NOPD policy. See Ops. Man. Ch. 41.5. In one case, where an officer placed himself in front of a vehicle and was thrown over its hood, several officers responded by shooting and killing the vehicle’s driver. In another instance, an officer fired at the tires of a fleeing vehicle, a clear and dangerous violation of NOPD policy. In still another case we reviewed, an officer fired at a driver purportedly accelerating towards the officer, instead of the officer getting out of the path of the vehicle, as required by NOPD policy. The officer suspected the driver was breaking into cars.
A number of the problematic shootings we reviewed were carried out by sergeants. In one of several shootings involving sergeants, a sergeant, who has been involved in six officerinvolved shootings in four years, fired several shots at individuals fleeing from him on foot in a residential area. The sergeant gave conflicting accounts as to why he fired his weapon, and the sergeant’s decision to engage in a foot pursuit was tactically questionable, given that he was by himself, at night, and the only infraction he had cause to believe the subjects had committed was failure to wear seatbelts (although he stated he suspected them of selling drugs).
As discussed below, we find reasonable cause to believe that deficiencies in NOPD’s investigation and review of officer-involved shootings contribute to officers’ use of deadly force that is contrary to policy or excessive. Moreover, NOPD’s failure to adequately investigate and review officers’ use of deadly force likely endangers officers by failing to detect and correct deficiencies in NOPD policy, training, tactics, and equipment.
3. Failure to Implement Measures to Prevent Unreasonable Force
The patterns of unreasonable force we observed are rooted in a number of longstanding systemic deficiencies within NOPD, including a failure to implement adequate: 1) use of force policies; 2) use of force training; 3) force reporting and investigation; 4) use of force review, including reviews of officer-involved shootings; and 5) tracking, analysis, and response to use of force data and trends, including use of an early warning system.
a) Use of Force Policies
We found that many officers, supervisors, and commanders have a poor understanding of use of force policies. When we asked, for example, what level of force should be used against a handcuffed subject who is inside the back of a police car kicking, one sergeant (who heads a task
- 9 -

force) told us, contrary to generally accepted police practice and NOPD policy, that an ECD should be the first level of force used.
While this poor understanding of how to use force appropriately is due to a number of factors, including insufficient training and poor supervision, its foundation lies in the extensive deficiencies of NOPD’s force-related policies. We found that NOPD has made little attempt to ensure that its use of force policies provide necessary guidance to officers. NOPD’s policies regarding what constitutes force, when various levels of force may be used, and when force must be reported, are incomplete, outdated, contradictory, and often incorrect. NOPD’s force policies are scattered through a number of directives10 and have not been substantively updated in many years, in some instances over a decade. In many instances policy “revisions” appear to involve nothing more than changing the date. When NOPD has implemented new use of force policies, it has been done with little thought to how they will integrate with existing policies and practices. As a result, force policies conflict with each other and, taken as a whole, leave significant gaps. No NOPD policy, for example, provides guidance for how first responders (usually patrol officers) should respond to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.
In many instances, key terms used throughout policies are not defined, or defined in conflicting or inaccurate ways. NOPD’s primary use of force policy fails to provide definitions for key terms such as “non-lethal,” “physical force,” and “bodily force” and contains two different definitions for “deadly force.” The definition of “excessive force” is convoluted and misleading, noting that serious injury or death is not “absolutely” necessary for force to be excessive. The policy quotes Louisiana law extensively, but does not define any of the terms included, such as “imminent danger” and “violent or forcible felony.” Nor is there any explanation of how these state law requirements or terms interact or whether they are integrated into the rest of NOPD’s force policy.
In some respects, NOPD’s force policy implies that NOPD uses a force continuum. For example, the skills and equipment that are included are listed in ascending order of seriousness, and the baton is referred to as an “intermediate level of force.” But, the policy does not include the guidance that would make a use of force continuum useful to officers, such as identifying all levels of force and the types of resistance against which such force can be expected to be effective. Related force policies are similarly deficient. The ECD policy provides officers no guidance about when an ECD, as opposed to another type of force, is appropriate, or what types of resistance justify ECD use. In general, it appears that the ECD policy (which refers to ECDs as TASERs, the brand name, throughout) has been largely cut and pasted from vendor materials, and that little if any attempt has been made to integrate it into NOPD’s use of force policies.
NOPD is currently rewriting its use of force policies. To be effective, this effort must be comprehensive and ensure that force policies are integrated, consistent, and complete.
10 See Ops. Man. Ch. 1.2, Use of Force; Ch. 1.13, Policy on the Use of Force; Ch. 1.7, Oleoresin Capsicum Spray; Ch. 1.7.1, Electronic Control Device (ECD); Ch. 41.4, Response to Police Calls; Ch. 41.5, Vehicle Pursuits; Ch. 41.22, Canine Patrol.
- 10 -

b) Use of Force Training
(1) General Use of Force Training
The impact of NOPD’s deficient force policies is substantially exacerbated by the deficient use of force training NOPD provides its officers. Police departments have long recognized the importance of training in preventing excessive force, yet NOPD does not provide necessary training on how to use force effectively, or on tactics to avoid using force. NOPD’s use of force training is insufficient in amount and quality. NOPD does not prepare new recruits in how to use force effectively and appropriately. Nor does NOPD provide sufficient in-service training to ensure that officers refresh and refine their skills or understand new tactics and changes in the law.
Once recruits become officers, use of force “training” within NOPD consists primarily of annual firearms and ECD recertification. Training Division staff reported that firearms recertification is scheduled for one to two hours per year but, because of travel time and other logistical issues, the actual training lasts about thirty minutes. There is thus no actual training attached to firearms recertification. Officers thus do not receive critical training in deadly force judgment or role-play or scenario-based training. Nor has there been routine and mandated training on Oleoresin Capsicum (“O.C.”) spray, the baton, or hand-to-hand encounters. There is no training on critical use of force legal or policy issues, force options, the appropriate application of deadly force or less lethal force, or the practical application of the use of force tools and techniques.
Since there is no use of force training, there is no written testing to determine whether officers understand the limits imposed by the law and NOPD policy, or performance testing to determine whether they can properly use and apply NOPD approved physical control techniques and weapons. NOPD officers also are not trained on what constitutes reportable uses of force, and NOPD supervisors are not trained in use of force report writing and investigation.
NOPD’s failure to adequately train its officers leaves officers ill-equipped to deal with dangerous situations in the field. Without the skill set to de-escalate or control volatile situations, officers are more likely to lose control of situations and resort to force. They are more likely to feel unsafe and to be unsafe. The unreasonable uses of force and tactical errors we observed in our review of use of force incidents were consistent with this lack of training.
NOPD officers at all ranks acknowledged the lack of adequate use of force training, and nearly every officer expressed a desire for more and better training in using force. The Superintendent has been making efforts to increase and improve force training, recently announcing, for example, a plan to dedicate one and a half days per year to specifically focus on new arrest techniques, including training officers to safely avoid using force in making arrests. This force training is a positive initial step to ensuring that all NOPD officers are trained adequately in using, reporting, and investigating force.
- 11 -

(2) Training in Mental Health or Behavioral Crisis Response
Crisis intervention policies and training can change officers’ preconceived notions of mental illness, decreasing officers’ use of force, and improving officer safety when responding to individuals in mental health crises. NOPD in recent years has experienced both the tragedy of an officer being killed by an individual in apparent mental health crisis, as well as the tragedy of killing an individual in apparent mental health crisis. While it is not always possible to determine conclusively in retrospect the impact of better policies and training on such incidents, these deaths underscore the importance of policies and training to minimize the potential for harm in interactions between officers and individuals in mental health crisis.
In several of the use of force incidents we reviewed involving officers using significant force against persons in apparent mental health crisis, it appeared that if officers had been trained in responding to such persons, they might have avoided the use of force altogether. In one incident, NOPD officers responded to a scene where a man was on his own property in a large tractor trailer, claiming to be a “member of the secret police” with “an affidavit to prove it.” Under circumstances in which the use of any force was questionable, officers deployed an ECD twice against the man to little effect. A sergeant arrived on the scene and was “able to convince [the man] to come to the front of the trailer and display his secret police affidavit to him.” The man was then apprehended without further incident. Unlike the officers who first responded to the scene, the sergeant employed tactics that involved no force and were effective.
In addition to incidents we learned of during our review of documents, we heard many concerns about NOPD’s response to mentally ill persons in our conversations with the broader New Orleans community. Mental health professionals as well as community advocates in New Orleans characterized NOPD interactions with subjects suffering serious mental illness as resulting in avoidable or excessive uses of force and lacking in sensitivity. One mental health community advocacy organization explained the problem “of police being called on by families for assistance in getting a loved one who is mentally ill, depressed or in emotional crisis to a hospital for care, only to have their loved one injured or killed by responding police officers.”
While all police encounters involve some level of risk that force may be necessary to apprehend the subject, police encounters with subjects suffering serious mental illness and experiencing a behavioral crisis involve a greater risk that the officers will employ force. Such incidents may involve a suspect that does not immediately respond to the directives of the officer, and who may perceive the officer as a threat. Such incidents may also involve officers that misinterpret the behavior of the subject as deliberately threatening, or who have not been trained in de-escalating such crises without resorting to force.
While NOPD provides limited mental health crisis intervention training to officers on its hostage negotiation team and to the Mobile Crisis Transportation Unit (“MCTU”), it does not provide adequate crisis intervention training to patrol officers, who are often the first-responders. Reportedly, the only training on crisis intervention is provided during basic academy training when the officers learn about the function of the MCTU, and some ad hoc roll call training provided by the Director of the MCTU. As a result of this lack of policies and training, it appears that NOPD is not identifying many of the individuals they encounter that suffer from
- 12 -

mental illness;11 sometimes uses more force than necessary in such encounters; and is not taking full advantage of emerging community resources to divert persons in mental health crisis directly to medical treatment where appropriate.
We found some recent successes in this area at NOPD, including the innovative and expanding MCTU. NOPD’s MCTU is an innovative unit staffed with well-trained and dedicated community volunteers to assist NOPD patrol units in processing and transporting subjects with serious mental illness to a hospital emergency room or other available mental health treatment center. The officers and volunteers of this Unit are working with NOPD leadership and the community to develop new models of crisis intervention and training. This work in developing models of crisis intervention for first responder patrol officers is critical, as the function of the MCTU is limited to the post-apprehension transfer of the subject. The MCTU has tremendous value but should not replace the need for crisis intervention training targeted at first-responder patrol officers.
c) Use of Force Reporting and Investigation
To help ensure that unsafe tactics and misconduct are identified and can be prevented in the future, the facts of every use of reportable force must be established accurately, and reviewed fairly and thoroughly. For the lowest levels of force, sometimes referred to as “soft” control techniques12 where there is no complaint of injury and no discrepancy in the descriptions of the force used, a report fully describing the force used may be sufficient. However, for even moderate levels of force, such as hand strikes and pushes, and in particular where there is a complaint of injury or a discrepancy in the description of the force used, some level of investigation and review is required, even in the absence of a formal misconduct complaint.
NOPD policy purports to provide for such force reporting, investigation, and review, but does not provide sufficient guidance for when and how to report or investigate force, or set up a realistic framework for meaningful review. As a result of this, in combination with inadequate training and little accountability, investigations of reported force are generally of too poor quality to serve as the basis for useful force review, and many uses of force are never reported at all.
11 Data provided by NOPD appears to show approximately 200 calls-for-service per month related to a mental health crisis. For a city the size of New Orleans, attempting to take into account the increase in mental illness postKatrina, this number would be expected to be three to four times higher than this reported 200 calls for service.
12 “Soft” control techniques usually include techniques such as wrist locks and arm twists and, performed correctly, present a minimal risk of injury. Generally, these techniques are used to control passive or defensive resistance. However, soft control techniques can be utilized for any level of resistance if tactically possible and legally permissible. By comparison, “hard” control techniques include striking techniques using the hands or feet, and are more likely to cause injury. The forceful direction of the suspect to the ground, sometimes called a “take-down,” is generally considered a “hard” control technique. Generally, hard control techniques are used to counter defensive resistance, active aggression, or aggravated active aggression.
- 13 -

1) Unreported Force
We found that NOPD tolerates widespread underreporting of force by its officers. Underreporting appears to be due in part to poor understanding of what force must be reported by policy; as discussed below, many officers reported to us that they would report force only where the subject of the force was injured or complained that the force was excessive, even though NOPD policy requires broader force reporting. Underreporting also appears to be the result of systemic failure to hold officers accountable for not reporting force, or to even acknowledge the extent to which NOPD officers use force. Some District Commanders reported to us that no officer in their entire District had used force in weeks or, in one instance, months. One sergeant told us his task force, a unit that tends to have higher than average arrests and force encounters, did not have a single incident of reportable force in the previous three month period. Given the number of arrests NOPD officers make, such claims lack credibility and indeed, officers, supervisors, and commanders at all ranks expressed to us a lack of confidence that force is consistently reported.
A snapshot of force reporting for one month further indicates that officers do in fact report only a small fraction of the force they actually use. We reviewed all uses of force reported by NOPD officers for the month of June 2010, 34 reports in all. During this same month, NOPD effectuated 6,787 arrests. Nationwide, estimates of force rates vary, but generally range from approximately 2-5% (i.e. for every 100 arrests, officers use reportable force in approximately 2-5 arrests).13 Thus, in the month of June 2010, if NOPD officers were using force at the national average rate, one would expect to have seen between approximately 135 and 340 uses of force, rather than the 34 NOPD reported. This underreporting appeared to be prevalent throughout the Department. In every district there were a substantially lower number of uses of force reported than one would expect based on the numbers of arrests. In one district, officers made 647 arrests in June 2010 and did not report a single use of force. Our conversations with NOPD staff reported similarly incredible use of force rates.
Our dataset of a random sample of RARs had fewer reports related to hands, fists, or other bodily force than would be expected in a department that by policy requires reporting this type of force. In our view, this is at least partially explained by the fact that NOPD has more structured protocols for how to report ECD deployment, and to some extent the use of O.C. spray, resulting in more accurate reporting of these types of force.
13 See, e.g., Edward R. Hickey & Joel H. Garner, Rate of Force Used by the Police in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S. Dep’t Just. Nat’l. Inst. Just. 199877 (2002) (reporting a force rate of 6.4 percent); William Terrill, Ph.D, City of San Antonio, Texas Police Department Use of Force Analysis July 1, 2001-December 31, 2002, (2003), available at www.sanantonio.gov/SAPD/pdf/UOFcomplete.pdf. (reporting a force rate of 2 percent); Dr. Steven Brandl, An Overview of Milwaukee Police Department Use of Force Incidents: January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, Rept. Fire and Police Commission (2010), available at www.ci.mil.wi.us/ImageLibrary/.../ 2010_ MidYear _Use_of_Force_Report.pdf (reporting a force rate of 1.12 percent). We found no evidence that NOPD officers use force at less than the average rate. It is likely that the variance in force/arrest ratios is due in part to different requirements among law enforcement agencies of what force must be reported. NOPD policy requires generally broad force reporting.
- 14 -

Widespread underreporting of force by officers means that NOPD has no opportunity to learn from use of force incidents. It also means that NOPD does not learn of some uses of force that were unjustified and should have resulted in officers or supervisors being held accountable. It appears that part of the reason that force is reported at very low rates within NOPD is that its force reporting policies do not require, or at least are not understood to require, reporting some of the force that officers use. However, the larger problem appears to be that within NOPD many officers simply do not report the force they use, despite knowing that policy requires that they do so, and that NOPD does not hold officers accountable for failing to report uses of force.
(2) Force Reporting Policies
NOPD’s policy on use of force reporting, Ops. Man. Ch. 1.3, Resisting Arrest Report, states that force reporting: “shall benefit the Department by identifying training improvements; problem assignments, activities or locations; potential liability issues and situations; the cause of confrontation and conflict resolution; and statistical data to assist in the planning and the development of policies and procedures.” This is a good policy but it is not being followed. We saw no evidence that force was being reported, reviewed, or analyzed in a way that would realize any of these stated benefits.
NOPD’s Use of Force and RAR policies each address when and how force must be reported, but conflict with each other and, even read together, contain signification gaps.14 One critical deficiency is that neither chapter defines “reportable use of force” or otherwise provides clarity on what types of force must be reported. The RAR policy states that a RAR “shall be prepared when an employee of the Department is involved in any situation where lethal and/or less than lethal force is used by or toward an employee.” However, “less than lethal force” is not defined in the NOPD Operations Manual and it is unclear whether reportable “less than lethal force” is meant to encompass only the devices explicitly specified as less than lethal in NOPD’s Use of Force policy (batons and chemical agents), or is meant to cover all types of force besides lethal force, including, for example, bodily force such as hits, kicks, and leg sweeps.
Another provision of NOPD’s force policy is likely responsible for the erroneous opinion we heard voiced more than once by NOPD officers; that force need only be reported if it results in injury. The policy states that “in all instances where physical force is used to control an individual and the individual is injured or complains of injury, the supervisor shall complete an offense report covering the circumstances surrounding the incident.” The terms “offense report” and “physical force” are not defined in either the Use of Force or RAR policy, further confusing how and when to report force.
Not surprisingly, officers and commanders at all levels expressed confusion or contradicted each other when describing what NOPD considers reportable force, and NOPD’s definition of less than lethal force. One Captain who currently commands a District told us that an officer need only report force when the officer used more force that the officer thought
14 NOPD policy on use of force reporting is captured primarily in its Use of Force policy, Ch. 1.2, and its Resisting Arrest Report policy, Ch. 1.3, and to a lesser degree in Ch. 1.6, Police Firearms Discharge, and Ch. 1.24, In Custody Deaths.
- 15 -

necessary. During a visit to another District station, we observed an arrestee who was bleeding from his forehead. An officer stated that the man had injured his head after officers dragged him out from under a house; the arrestee stated that an officer had pulled him off a fence by his ankle, causing him to fall and hit his head. While the officers and subject disagreed on what type of force led to the injury, all parties agreed that the officers had used force and that the man was injured. Yet we received conflicting answers from the officer, his sergeant, and the lieutenant, about whether a use of force report would be completed, and whether the man would be taken to the hospital, even though NOPD policy clearly required both.
Officers also displayed inconsistent and erroneous understandings of when officers must notify NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) of a use of force. Some told us PIB would be notified only where there is a discrepancy between an officer’s and subject’s description of a force event. Others told us PIB would be informed if a supervisor thought excessive force had been used. NOPD’s RAR policy in fact requires that the completed RAR “shall be forwarded” to PIB within 24 hours from the time of the force incident, and does not appear to limit this to RARs involving only more serious or questionable uses of force.
Neither the Use of Force nor RAR policy makes clear that an employee observing a use of force has a responsibility to report that force. In fact, NOPD’s RAR policy appears to release employees from that responsibility, stating that “[r]esponsibility for the notification of an appropriate supervisor within his chain of command to handle the report shall rest with the employee involved in the incident.” It is appropriate to place the primary responsibility for reporting force on the officer that used the force, but any reporting policy should make clear that all employees have a responsibility to ensure that force is reported, especially where the employee believes the force used was unreasonable.
(3) RAR Investigations
Our review of RARs and related policies, as well as conversations with NOPD officers, supervisors and commanders of all ranks, make clear that NOPD does not routinely investigate the uses of force that officers do report. Further, we saw no accountability for supervisors who conduct inadequate force investigations. By tolerating supervisors’ failures to investigate uses of force NOPD gives up the opportunity to correct dangerous behavior, and instead sends the message that there is little institutional oversight or concern about officers’ use of force.
Pursuant to NOPD policy, a supervisor is required to respond to the scene to “conduct the necessary follow-up investigation” of each “resisting arrest incident.” As discussed above, NOPD policies do not make clear what constitutes a “resisting arrest incident” requiring supervisory follow-up. However, even in circumstances where a RAR is completed, we generally did not find evidence of the “follow-up investigation” required by policy. We found that in many instances it does not appear that the supervisor even responds to the scene as required by policy and, even when a supervisor did respond, the supervisor appears to have done little more than complete the RAR, taking few if any investigative steps to establish the facts related to the officer’s use of force. We found that, despite the clear policy requirement that supervisors interview officer and civilian witnesses, conducting such interviews is the exception rather than the rule. We reviewed incidents in which one supervisor responded to the scene of a
- 16 -

use of force and a different one conducted the interviews. Often, interviews were conducted days after a use of force had already been approved by a different supervisor. While many departments recognize the value of ECD cameras but cannot afford the expense, NOPD has purchased this much more expensive version of ECD, but supervisors do not routinely review— or at least document their review of—the video capture of an ECD deployment. Similarly, we rarely saw reference to whether a sergeant had reviewed in-car camera recordings of an incident, or what the recording showed.
In many instances, it appeared that the officer who used the force simply wrote the RAR and gave it to the supervisor to sign. Often, the language in the RAR, which is by policy meant to document the supervisor’s investigation of the use of force, was identical to the incident report, which is meant to document the arresting officer’s version of events. Both types of reports often included general language that the subject was “violently resisting,” or that the officer “took the suspect down,” which does not describe the level of resistance or the type of force used with the specificity necessary to permit meaningful assessment of the incident. Yet, supervisors consistently approved, and in some cases wrote, force reports replete with such language.
Similarly, we observed many instances in which a single officer wrote an Incident Report to document the actions of all involved employees, rather than having each employee document their observations in supplemental reports. The Incident Reports documenting force were nearly always written in the third person, making it impossible to discern whose version of events was being reported, or to hold any one officer accountable for his or her actions; and, consequently building into any investigation based on the Incident Report the assumption that all officers saw and heard the same things. As only one officer is required to sign the report, there is no indication that the other named officers agreed with or even saw the version of events described in the Incident Report. It was often unclear when supervisors reviewed and approved officers’ reports. In many instances, the signature blocks on reports were not clear, making it difficult or impossible to discern who investigated the use of force and who approved the report. We also reviewed reports in which the signature blocks were not signed or dated.
Upon completion of the force “investigation,” supervisors generally do not document whether the force used indicated a failure of training or tactics and whether it was consistent with NOPD policy. This was true even where the use of force clearly demonstrated inappropriate conduct, such as an ECD discharged at a range too close to be effective, necessitating multiple ECD cycles. Even in cases of such clear policy violations, we found that supervisors marked “Yes,” to the question “Was departmental policy followed?”
NOPD policies and protocols further fail to provide the structure for reliable and credible force investigations. NOPD policy does not require that the RAR be completed, and the use of force investigated, by a supervisor who was uninvolved with the use of force, or who is of a higher rank than the officer who used force. Indeed, we saw many uses of force reported and investigated by supervisors who were present when the force occurred, and thus had already tacitly approved the action of the officer, raising the potential of a self-serving RAR. We reviewed some cases in which supervisors reviewed their own uses of force. We also saw
- 17 -

several cases in which officers investigated the use of force of officers of the same or higher rank.
NOPD does not provide sufficient guidance to supervisors on conducting use of force investigations. No directive, training curricula, or other document provides direction on the purpose of the questioning and the appropriate line of questioning. No policy, protocol or training sets out how to conduct use of force investigation interviews, how to decide who to interview, or what issues need to be resolved. No policy requires that the supervisor gather evidence as necessary to resolve material discrepancies, or consider and document whether the description of the force used is consistent with the injuries sustained. NOPD policies do not require collecting forensic evidence, taking photographs, or gathering and reviewing any audio or video evidence.
(4) Officer-Involved Shooting Investigations
The systemic deficiencies in NOPD’s investigation and review of officer-involved shootings are so egregious that they appear in some respects to be deliberate. NOPD officerinvolved shooting investigations consistently fail to gather evidence, establish critical facts, or fairly analyze the evidence that is readily available. As a result, despite clear and systemic problems with how NOPD officers use deadly force, NOPD has not found that an officerinvolved shooting violated policy in at least six years, and NOPD officials we spoke with could recall only one out-of-policy finding even before that time.
To prevent the unconstitutional use of deadly force, build credibility with communities, protect officer safety, and manage risk, every use of deadly force, including all officer-involved shootings, should be promptly and comprehensively investigated and reviewed. To be complete, this investigation must be conducted from the criminal and administrative perspectives. Neither investigation depends upon whether anyone has complained about the use of force. These investigations may be conducted at the same time or sequentially, depending upon departmental policy and the circumstances of the incident.
The criminal investigation assesses whether the use of deadly force was lawful, and is often conducted by a specialized force investigation team, or by an outside entity such as the state police, a neighboring jurisdiction, or the DA’s Office. In many departments the homicide division conducts the assessment of whether the officer’s use of deadly force was justified; doing so necessitates specific policies, training and supervision to ensure investigations are credible, complete, and reliable. If the criminal investigation indicates that the shooting may have been unlawful, the incident should be referred to local prosecutors to determine whether to seek prosecution.
The administrative investigation of the use of deadly force assesses whether the involved officers or others violated departmental policies, and whether the incident raises tactical, policy, training, or equipment concerns. This administrative investigation is often conducted by a department’s internal affairs division, by a specialized force investigation team, or, particularly in controversial cases, by an independent, skilled, and credible outside investigative team. As discussed in the next section, once the administrative investigation of the use of deadly force is
- 18 -

completed, the department must make use of the information, reviewing the incident to determine the appropriate response to any identified policy violations or tactical, policy, training, or equipment concerns.
NOPD does not have a legitimate system in place for investigating uses of deadly force by its officers. Where a firearms weapons discharge results in death or injury, the Homicide Cold Case Unit has the primary responsibility to investigate. In such circumstances, PIB’s administrative investigation is, pursuant to written policy, to “ask the assigned Homicide Investigator if there are apparent violations of law or departmental regulations on the part of the involved officer.” This and other NOPD directives divest PIB of any real authority or ability to conduct an administrative investigation and place that authority instead with the Homicide Division, whose detectives have no training in conducting administrative investigations, nor independence from the criminal investigation. Our conversations with NOPD officials confirmed that, counter to good policing practice, NOPD conducts an administrative investigation only of officer-involved shootings where no one is injured or killed.
Adding to the harm caused by NOPD’s failure to conduct focused administrative investigations of officer-involved shootings in which someone is injured or killed, is the consistent extremely poor quality of the investigations of these incidents conducted by NOPD’s Homicide Division. As noted above, we reviewed all identified officer-involved shooting investigations for the time period covering January 2009-April 2010. We found each of the investigations of these shootings to be deeply flawed. The investigations generally did not include the investigative steps or analysis necessary to make a credible determination of whether the use of force was lawful. In addition, the Homicide Division investigations made no attempt to determine whether the use of force was consistent with policy, or even to conduct an investigation that would allow anyone else to make this determination. For a time, NOPD even had a practice of temporarily assigning the officers who had been involved in officer-involved shootings to the Homicide Division, and then automatically deeming the statements officers provided to Homicide investigators to be “compelled.” As discussed more fully below, this practice effectively immunized the use of these statements in any subsequent criminal investigation or prosecution. It is difficult to view this practice as anything other than a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult to criminally prosecute any officer in these cases, regardless of the circumstances.
We found that, in addition to broad practices and policies that undermine the efficacy of NOPD’s officer-involved shooting investigations, individual investigations are severely deficient as well. In one officer-involved shooting incident we reviewed, a sergeant endangered bystanders and other officers when shooting at a fleeing vehicle after unnecessarily placing his vehicle in front of it. Officers were attempting to stop the vehicle for traffic violations, although they suspected the car was stolen. After a lengthy vehicle pursuit in which the subject rammed several police cars trying to escape, the sergeant pulled his squad car directly in front of the vehicle, violating NOPD policy and exposing himself and his partner to danger. The sergeant fired four shots at the car, hitting the driver once. The shooting would have clearly violated policy except that the sergeant reported that he saw the driver of the car raise a handgun. Clearly the statement that the driver was holding a gun was a crucial fact in determining whether the shooting was consistent with NOPD policy, and perhaps whether it was excessive.
- 19 -

The credibility of the investigation was undermined by the investigator’s failure to take basic but critical investigative steps and by a report that appeared designed to confirm the involved sergeant’s version of events and gloss over admissions of clear violations. Though a gun was found in the car, no officer besides the sergeant who fired said that he saw a gun during the incident. The driver and three passengers each stated that the driver did not have a gun. The investigating sergeant did not make any attempt to determine why none of the officers saw the weapon, despite lighting that the investigator called “excellent.” While investigators successfully lifted prints from the car, they did not attempt to take prints from the gun. NOPD’s efforts to talk with the gun’s registered owner, whose home address the detectives had, are also unclear and described only as meeting with “negative results.” In addition to these troubling facts, the homicide investigator’s report implied that the driver admitted that there was a gun in the car but that it was not his. However, the transcript of the driver’s statement makes clear that the homicide investigator’s characterization of the driver’s statement is misleading. The driver told investigators clearly that he did not have a gun, that he never saw a gun in the car that night, and that he had no knowledge that anyone in the car had a gun with them. The driver told detectives that the female passenger had spoken of a gun that she owned in the past, but that he had never seen her with one. A fair and thorough investigation would have resolved these discrepancies rather than obscured them.
We found that even in instances where officers’ use of deadly force resulted in the death of an individual, basic investigative steps were not taken and key facts remain unresolved. One such incident involved officers who shot and killed the fleeing suspect of a car-jacking. The man was unarmed and was ramming vehicles in an attempt to evade officers. When an officer placed himself in front of the man’s truck, the officer was struck and thrown over the hood of the car. Officers shot and killed the man while still in his truck. Officers gave different rationales as to why they fired and witnesses stated that the driver was attempting to surrender when the officers shot him. The Homicide Division investigation did not attempt to establish whether the facts mitigated officers’ decision to shoot at the driver, in violation of NOPD policy, rather than get out of the path of the truck. The criminal investigator did not resolve the conflict between witness statements, or even interview a number of “reluctant” witnesses. The investigator did not account for all shots fired; determine which officer fired the fatal shot; or interview the officer who was struck by the truck. The officers apparently were not separated before they were interviewed, and investigators compelled officers’ statements (immunizing the use of such statements in any criminal prosecution) without first attempting to obtain voluntary statements.
Officer-involved shooting investigations conducted by PIB (because no one was struck or injured) appeared largely pro forma. Often in response to the question on the Administrative Shooting Notification Form, “Follow up Administrative Investigation to be Conducted,” the investigator did not even check either “Yes” or “No.” In many of the investigations where an administrative investigation was purportedly conducted, the administrative investigator did not indicate whether the force was within policy or presented training concerns, leaving the answer to that question blank as well.
In one officer-involved shooting investigated by PIB, an officer shot at a moving vehicle, reporting that he had done so because the driver was about to hit him with the car and that he was
- 20 -

unable to get out of the way. The recording from the officer’s in-car video system showed this to be false. The officer’s supervisor claimed to have watched the in-car video, but did not question the officer’s account. According to the PIB lieutenant that investigated the incident, the video showed that the car was not heading towards the officer when he shot at it; there were no visible obstructions that prevented the officer from retreating; and the officer was not in danger when he fired the shot. The PIB investigator also discovered that several officers in the District turned off their in-car video cameras during the vehicle pursuit that preceded the shooting. Inexplicably, the formal investigation found the violations associated with the shooting to be “not sustained,” a finding that is supposed to indicate that the policy violation could be neither proven nor disproven. Neither the supervisor who failed to identify the apparent policy violation, nor the officers who turned off their in-car video cameras were held accountable.
NOPD has acknowledged the problems with its investigations of officer-involved shootings, and reports that it is fundamentally remaking its systems for investigating them. Already, NOPD has made some changes, including reportedly revising its previous practice of not allowing PIB investigators behind the tape in an officer-involved shooting—although this change has not yet been memorialized in policy. This change is significant. We reviewed officer-involved shooting scene sign-in sheets that documented over seventy officers and City officials allowed on-scene following shootings, making it appear as though everyone within NOPD except PIB was allowed on-scene. Access to the scene of any major crime, especially the scene of an officer-involved shooting, should be kept to as few personnel as possible, and PIB investigators conducting the administrative investigation of the shooting should always be included among those few.
More broadly, NOPD has reported that it is developing a system under which both the administrative and criminal investigations of officer-involved shootings, as well as of other critical incidents, will be conducted by a force investigation “team.” This team will report to PIB, which in turn will report directly to NOPD’s Superintendent.
(5) In-Custody Death Investigation
To minimize and appropriately respond to unreasonable force, police departments must thoroughly investigate the deaths of detainees or arrestees that occur while in police custody, regardless of whether these deaths appear to have occurred proximate to the use of deadly force. Neither Ops. Man. Ch. 1.24, In Custody Death, nor any other NOPD directive, provides for sufficient investigation and review of in-custody deaths. Indeed, that policy is little more than a list of who must be notified. Our conversations with NOPD officials confirmed that there is no specific guidance or training for NOPD criminal or administrative investigators regarding how to investigate an in-custody death.
One of the two in-custody death investigations in the data set we were provided was sufficiently complete to review.15 This investigation by NOPD’s Homicide Division raised significant concerns about the adequacy of NOPD’s in-custody death investigations. NOPD investigated the death of a man arrested for a family-related disturbance of the peace. According
15 We did not review an in-custody case file that was provided to us that included a handwritten note stating that the file “was recreated as much as possible,” and noting that “perhaps the FBI has the case file.”
- 21 -

to police reports, the man was belligerent during the arrest and had to be forcefully subdued. The man was taken to the hospital twice during the evening of his arrest, first because the jail refused to accept him because he had sustained a laceration above his eye when officers arrested him (the investigation report notes the laceration was “very minor,” although it required “several stitches” to close); the second time because of high blood pressure. Approximately three days later, while still in jail custody, the man died. According to the investigation, the coroner determined that the man died of a laceration to the spleen that occurred approximately 48 hours prior to the man’s death. The investigator concluded that NOPD officers did not cause the man’s death.
This investigation leaves critical questions unanswered. The case file includes no documentation of the coroner’s conclusion that the man died due to injuries sustained approximately 48-hours prior to death, or indication that the investigator talked with the coroner to determine how wide a time-span might be included in this “approximate” time frame. Rather, the only document in the investigative file from the coroner notes a final diagnosis of, among other things, “multiple recent injuries of blunt impact,” does not mention an injury to the spleen, and classifies the death as “undetermined.” In addition, the investigator did not record, or even take a formal statement from, the deceased man’s mother, who witnessed the event. The mother, according to interview notes, believed that her son was unconscious after officers arrested him, while officers state that the man, who moments earlier had been belligerently threatening to shoot officers, was conscious but “passively resisting” by not moving when they took him to the squad car. The report notes that the mother was extremely upset and that a formal statement would be “forthcoming,” but, as we observed in other investigations by NOPD’s Homicide Division, the follow-up interview of a witness whose statement appeared to conflict with officers’ versions of events was not conducted or recorded. Without taking any investigative steps to verify facts, the report concluded that the man likely died after thrashing on the floor of the jail or a “physical encounter with another inmate.” But the investigator did not interview any jail inmates or staff. We found it impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this investigation regarding the circumstances of the subject’s death. We did conclude however, that NOPD’s investigation and review of the incident were clearly inadequate and are particularly concerned that there is no indication that NOPD command staff intervened to require a more thorough and reliable investigation of this death.
d) Use of Force Review
A use of force investigation serves as the basis for a department’s review of the incident to determine whether there were any policy violations or tactical, policy, training, or equipment concerns. This review is critical in enabling the department to learn from past incidents, prevent future misconduct, and improve officer safety. Reviewing aggregate force data allows a department to identify concerns and trends (including positive trends) with particular types of force, geographic areas, officers, supervisors, or units, and to enable an evidence-based response that may include policy changes, training, corrective measures, a shift in tactics, or new equipment. While NOPD nominally has in place systems to review use of force incidents and aggregate force data, we found that these systems are not functioning and these reviews do not take place.
- 22 -

(1) Review of Officer-Involved Shootings and other Critical Incidents
NOPD policy does not set out a clear process for reviewing officer-involved shootings or other critical incidents. Our conversations with NOPD officials indicate that PIB has in the past conducted administrative “hearings” that consisted primarily of the PIB commander meeting with the officer to discuss the shooting. Even this “review” has in many instances been impossible because, in a number of instances, the Homicide Division failed for months or even years to provide its investigative report of the shooting to PIB, as required by policy. Based on our conversation with NOPD officials, this failure by the Homicide Division to provide these files to PIB appears to have effectively prevented any review of these officer-involved shootings.
As of September 2010, there were fourteen firearms discharge reviews that could not be completed because PIB had requested but not received the Homicide investigations or RARs for these cases. After we inquired about these outstanding investigations, some of which dated back to 2005, PIB asked Homicide to provide them. In November, Homicide’s new commander provided PIB with every OIS criminal investigation she could find. Still missing are NOPD’s investigations of four officer-involved shootings that occurred between 2005 and 2007, and an additional two RARs regarding officer-involved shootings, one from 2006 and another from 2010. NOPD’s oversight of its officers’ use of deadly force has been so perfunctory that until we inquired, PIB had not requested the Homicide Division to provide these long-overdue investigations. Moreover, when we asked for all of NOPD’s officer-involved shooting investigations during a given time period, NOPD initially provided investigations for only approximately one-half of the incidents. It was only after repeated additional inquires that NOPD was able to locate and provide a list of all officer-involved shootings as well as the related investigative case files.
Even in the cases where it has a complete investigative file, PIB has not conducted “hearings” in a timely manner. As of September 2010, in addition to the fourteen cases that could not be completed because Homicide had not provided the files to PIB, an additional eleven cases were completed but awaiting hearing. One of these cases dated from 2008 and several were from 2009. NOPD’s failure to complete reviews of some officer-involved shootings in a timely manner unnecessarily compromises officer and civilian safety, and subjects the City and Department to substantial liability risks.
Alongside its efforts to improve investigations of critical incidents like officer-involved shootings, NOPD reports it is remaking its process for reviewing such incidents, moving towards an interdisciplinary force review “board.” Whether this board is effective at preventing misconduct and increasing officer safety will depend upon how NOPD structures and supports this board.
(2) Review of Non-Deadly Force Incidents
In addition to failing to ensure that non-deadly force is reported and investigated, NOPD also fails to adequately review the non-deadly force used by its officers. By policy, PIB is responsible for reviewing all NOPD uses of force, but we found this review has been
- 23 -

deliberately, albeit implicitly, narrowed over the years and is currently largely ministerial. A number of PIB protocols, read together, provide for expansive use of force review. PIB Operations Directive #17 states that PIB’s Professional Standards Section is responsible for complying with the requirements of Ops. Man. Ch. 1.3, Resisting Arrest Report,16 by conducting a “continual analysis” of use of force reports received during the calendar year and submitting periodic reports. Chapter 1.3 provides that PIB is responsible for the “collection, review, analysis, and dissemination of information gained from the ‘Resisting Arrest Reports.’” The policy further specifies that this review should determine: 1) whether Department policy and procedures were adhered to; 2) whether policy and procedures are clearly understandable to the employee and effective to cover the situation; 3) whether Department training is adequate; and 4) whether Department equipment is adequate. The PIB Directive further provides that reports analyzing use of force are to be submitted quarterly, or more frequently as needed, to the Deputy Superintendent of PIB. An annual report summarizing the quarterly reports is required to be submitted to PIB’s Deputy Superintendent annually. Chapter 1.3 requires that a written, yearly analysis summarizing use of force incidents be submitted to the Superintendent.
The use of force review contemplated by NOPD policy is appropriate; unfortunately, none of this mandated use of force review or analysis is or has been occurring, at least for the past several years. Our interview of PIB staff and review of documents indicated that PIB’s review of use of force, at least in recent years, has been limited to the narrow report review mandated by PIB Directive #27, which does not acknowledge the existence of the more expansive PIB Directive #17. PIB Directive #27 requires review of NOPD’s use of force reports to ensure that they are “completed as required” and to correct “any deficiencies in the form completion.” It appears that Directive #27 was added without consideration of Directive #17 and that no attempt has been made to update the former directive or to otherwise make consistent PIB’s responsibilities pursuant to each directive. Our conversations with NOPD officials made clear that the sergeant PIB assigned to review use of force reports was given a narrow mandate for reviewing force. He did not appear aware of any responsibilities beyond the minimal facial review required by Directive #27, nor had he been trained in the more substantial force review contemplated by Directive #17 and Chapter 1.3. Accordingly, this sergeant reported providing some ad hoc feedback to supervisors regarding their officers’ use of force, but stated that generally feedback is related to ensuring that use of force reports are filled out completely.
NOPD’s use of force review is further undermined by NOPD policies and practices that diffuse responsibility for reviewing force while not demanding accountability to ensure that review by anyone actually occurs. Thus, while some policies nominally place responsibility for use of force review, tracking, and reporting on PIB, other NOPD policies and practices act to divest PIB of some of its authority to review and determine the propriety of force. Integrity Control Officers (“ICOs”), who report to District Commanders, not PIB, are required to review two in-car camera videos per day and “note any deficiencies and [counsel] officers as needed.” Our interviews with staff throughout NOPD confirmed that there is no consultation with PIB by the Training Division or ICOs when making these determinations. The RAR form itself contains a distribution list for the completed report, which includes PIB, the Unit Commander, the
16 PIB Operations Directive #17 refers to this Chapter as “Use of Force Report,” but this reference appears outdated, as this Chapter is currently called “Resisting Arrest Report.”
- 24 -

Division Commander, the Bureau Assistant Superintendent, and the Superintendent, but there is no indication of what, if any responsibility for review any of these offices besides PIB has.
e) Force Data Review and Response
NOPD has implemented a number of systems that require the review of aggregate force data to identify concerns and positive and negative trends, including NOPD’s early warning system, called Personnel Performance Enhancement Program (“PPEP”), and the collection and review of force data by PIB. Neither of these systems is functioning as necessary to be effective, or as required by policy.
(1) Early Warning System
The development and implementation of NOPD’s new early warning system will better enable NOPD to track and analyze force data. NOPD’s current system, set out in Ops. Man. Ch. 13.27, Professional Performance Enhancement Program (PPEP), is outdated and essentially exists in name only. Officers of every rank and throughout the Department told us that information is only haphazardly submitted for inclusion in the database, and being subjected to the program’s single intervention—a one-size-fits all course commonly referred to as “bad boy school”—reportedly is seen by some as a badge of honor. There has been only one of these classes in the past eight months while NOPD implements a new program that will provide more individualized interventions and will make a professionalism and courtesy course part of inservice training for every employee.
To be effective, NOPD’s early warning system should be re-tooled so that it is a singlesource of real time information that can assist line supervisors and upper level commanders alike in identifying officers who may need closer supervision or particular interventions. Interventions developed based on early warning system data should be tailored to the specific problem presented, and the intervention should be monitored and refined as necessary until the problem is resolved. Part of this function should be identifying use of force outliers, determining whether the aberration is meaningful and needs correction, and monitoring interventions to determine that any use of force problems have been resolved.
NOPD, in conjunction with the Independent Police Monitor, is currently working to implement new software and hardware to create a more comprehensive and current early warning system. Alongside this effort, NOPD must ensure that the appropriate policies and training related to the early warning system are developed and implemented, and that provisions are made to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the hardware and database. More generally, NOPD should work closely with the Independent Police Monitor to analyze and respond to force trends.
(2) PIB Data Collection
PIB collects a broad variety of complaint, investigation, and use of force data and reports this information in lengthy annual and statistical reports. These reports, required by NOPD policy, are quite detailed, including, for example, types of complaints by assignment, district and
- 25 -

rank; identifying the officers with the most complaints, including the type and resolution of each complaint; and listing a breakdown of complaints by race and gender of the officer. This information, however, is unaccompanied by any analysis or discussion of how this raw data might be used to help decrease misconduct complaints through, for example, prioritizing training areas or changing oversight mechanisms. It is significant and laudable that NOPD is gathering and tracking this data. However, without analysis of the data for such purposes as developing policy and identifying training needs, collecting and aggregating this data amounts to a substantial amount of work with little tangible benefit.
(3) COMSTAT
COMSTAT provides another opportunity for NOPD to prevent force misconduct by discussing use of force trends and directly comparing the use of force rates of various units, Districts, and other strata with their similarly situated peers; their respective arrest rates; the rate of misconduct complaints; and the quality of arrests, i.e. whether and what type of prosecutions result from the arrests. ICOs are required to report to COMSTAT each week a variety of integrity related data. In the several COMSTAT meetings that we attended we never saw this data presented. Use of force data can be included in the data ICOs compile for COMSTAT and substantively discussed at COMSTAT meetings.
III. STOPS, SEARCHES AND ARRESTS
Our investigation also provided reasonable cause to believe that NOPD officers violate the Fourth Amendment by engaging in a pattern or practice of stopping, searching, and arresting individuals without the requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
A. Legal Standards
The Fourth Amendment guarantees in part, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Generally, a search or seizure is unreasonable “in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.” City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000). Under the Fourth Amendment, “[a] person is seized if ‘taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’” United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 629 (2003)).
Probable cause supporting an arrest exists only where the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge “are sufficient to warrant a prudent person . . . in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Club Retro L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 204 (5th Cir. 2009). The facts “must be particularized to the arrestee,” Id. (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979)), and “must be known to the officer at the time of the arrest; post-hoc justifications based on facts later learned cannot support an earlier arrest.” Id.
- 26 -

Absent probable cause, the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to briefly detain individuals for investigative purposes if the officers possess reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). Reasonable suspicion must be supported by articulable facts particular to the detained individual, which, combined with “rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant an intrusion.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir. 1994). To justify a Terry stop, officers must possess “more than a hunch” that an individual may engage in wrongdoing. Id. at 840. Notably, the suspected behavior must constitute an actual violation of the law. If a police officer incorrectly interprets the law in seizing a person, a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred even if the officer’s factual observations were correct or the officer’s interpretation of the law was made in good faith. See United States v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282, 288 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that stop reliant upon officer’s mistaken interpretation of state traffic law violated the Fourth Amendment because “the legal justification [for a stop] must be objectively grounded,” internal quotation marks omitted).
Under limited circumstances, an officer may briefly search a detained individual for weapons incident to a valid Terry stop. A Terry weapons search must be premised on “individualized suspicion” derived from “specific and articulable facts” that a suspect “is armed and dangerous” or “may gain immediate control of weapons.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 332-334 (1990). See also Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781, 784-786 (2009); United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1575 (5th Cir. 1992). During a lawful Terry weapons search, a law enforcement officer may also seize objects whose incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-376 (1993). Nonetheless, courts are “sensitive to the danger . . . that officers will enlarge a specific authorization, furnished by a warrant or an exigency, into the equivalent of a general warrant to rummage and seize at will.” Id. at 378. Thus, to seize evidence under the “plain feel” exception, an officer must first have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband. Id. at 376-377.
B. Findings
NOPD’s policies and training on warrantless searches and seizures are highly inadequate, leaving officers with little guidance regarding the Fourth Amendment’s limitations on their authority to detain, search, and arrest. A previous DOJ investigation noted almost ten years ago that some NOPD officers could not articulate proper legal standards for stops, searches, or arrests. We recommended then that NOPD provide annual in-service training to officers on this critical topic. As discussed below, NOPD still does not provide meaningful in-service training to officers on how to properly carry out stops, searches, and arrests. Throughout the Department, and among other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, we heard broad and emphatic consensus that officers have a poor understanding of how to lawfully execute searches and seizures. NOPD’s failure to train officers or otherwise provide guidance on the limits and requirements of the Fourth Amendment contributes directly to the pattern of unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests we observed. Additionally, the Department’s organizational focus on arrests encourages stops without reasonable suspicion, illegal pat downs, and arrests without probable cause.
- 27 -

1. Inadequate Policies and Training
NOPD’s written policies governing warrantless search and seizure provide insufficient detail and explanation to adequately guide officers’ conduct. A clear example is Ops. Man. Ch. 41.3, regarding field interviews and stops and frisks. The policy, which was placed in effect August 29, 1999 and last updated on October 5, 2003, is just four pages long, and only two paragraphs provide officers with direction on the appropriate legal standards for initiating an investigatory stop and/or frisk under Terry. While the policy provides a canned list of recognized facts used to justify a Terry stop, it does not instruct officers that most of these facts standing alone are insufficient—effectively glossing over the requirement that to establish reasonable suspicion under Terry, officers must have articulable facts that, when considered together, provide evidence that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed. Overall, the policy fails to provide clear and comprehensive guidance on stops and frisks, while its tone serves to minimize the Terry standard in a manner that may promote improper stops.
We also found officer training on search and seizure to be deficient in both content and frequency. Officers, including uniform patrol, detectives, and members of narcotics and task force units, consistently reported to us that they received search and seizure training in their original recruit class, but no yearly in-service training to update and reinforce their understanding of the law and of NOPD policy. NOPD’s recruit training schedule reflects that a current patrol officer with a law degree teaches several legal blocks related to search and seizure. Typically, however, training divisions secure outside instructors who have a current and thorough knowledge of Fourth Amendment issues, such as law school professors or attorneys regularly encountering search and seizure issues in court. As discussed in the Training section of this Report, NOPD’s Fourth Amendment training curriculum does not reflect either current or thorough knowledge of this critical area. The USAO has in the past offered free search and seizure instruction to the Department, but only a small fraction of the force took advantage of the training. Indeed, only recently has NOPD leadership appeared receptive and welcoming of outside training opportunities.
We saw no evidence of efforts to reinforce or build upon what officers learn in the Academy related to search and seizure, or to provide officers with legal updates on this constantly-evolving area of law. Officers at all levels, criminal court judges, and prosecutors uniformly pointed to a need to augment and enhance NOPD’s search and seizure training. Indeed, one district commander told us: “This gets us in so much trouble,” pointing to the need for training in “justification for detaining someone, when you have PC [probable cause], when you put your hands on someone.” The same commander observed that what cadets “learn at the Academy is sucked right out of their heads as soon as they leave,” reflecting the reality that once in the field, officers forget what they learned due to non-use and/or other officers exchanging common misconceptions of law. Without regular refresher courses to correct misconceptions and mistakes, NOPD risks institutionalizing common legal errors and converting them into de facto operating methods.
The consequences of the Department’s lapses with respect to training were evident in our interviews with officers who displayed a profound lack of understanding of the limits of Terry. For example, one officer, when asked about the appropriate length of time for a Terry stop,
- 28 -

responded that he had the right to detain a person for a period of one hour. He did not identify any particularized circumstances that might justify a detention of that length, but rather appeared to believe it was presumptively appropriate. In another exchange, several officers were queried about the circumstances under which they could conduct a pat down for weapons. The officers responded that they had the right to check anyone detained to ensure the officer’s safety. In fact, the law is clear that an officer can only conduct a pat down when he has reasonable articulable facts to support that the subject is armed and dangerous. Deficiencies in NOPD’s policies and training have left officers with an unacceptably poor understanding of how to constitutionally execute warrantless searches and seizures.
2. Organizational Focus on Arrests
Additionally, we found that NOPD’s focus on statistics, such as generating Field Interview Cards (“FIC”s) and arrests, amplifies the risk that officers will execute illegal searches and seizures. As one commander told us, “[t]hese officers are under the gun to make arrest, arrest, arrest, which leads to civil rights violations and complaints.” NOPD patrol officers and many members of the command staff described a Department that has long been statisticsdriven—one that measures “productivity” by quantity, rather than quality, of encounters and arrests. We observed that arrests, Terry stops, and FIC numbers were the predominant focus of the Department’s weekly COMSTAT meetings, and many officers described a strong and unyielding pressure to increase numbers.
Officers throughout NOPD told us that pressure to make arrests and engage in sufficient “activity” to satisfy command staff and NOPD brass encourages aggressive enforcement of lowlevel infractions, and diverts attention and resources from quality arrests leading to significant convictions. Indeed, in 2009, NOPD made nearly 60,000 arrests, of which about 20,000 were of people with outstanding traffic or misdemeanor warrants from neighboring parishes for such infractions as unpaid tickets. By mid-2010, the Department had made nearly 10,000 arrests on outstanding warrants, about two-thirds of which were for minor out-of-parish warrants, according to reports from the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a New Orleans-based non-profit organization.
Additionally, NOPD’s database of documented field interviews appears to reflect a dramatic recent uptick. For four months, from June 1, 2010 through October 1, 2010, NOPD recorded in its FIC database nearly 24,000 field interviews, compared with about 29,800 for three and a half years, from 2007 through May 31, 2010. Of course, this increase may partially reflect both better reporting and increased use of the electronic database (although some officers continue to use physical field interview cards and store them in individual districts). Nonetheless, it is consistent with reports from both officers and the community of more intense field-interview activity in recent months. At the same time, it was apparent during our interviews that officers lack a uniform understanding regarding the completion, use, and preservation of FICs. Some officers stated they prepared FICs only in “special cases,” while others said they prepared FICs on people they encountered during traffic stops and calls for service.
- 29 -

The pressure to achieve a high volume of field interviews comes with little correlative emphasis on gathering and using quality intelligence. Officers reported that they rarely, if ever, find FIC data useful. Moreover, NOPD retains FIC data longer than such information could be considered relevant or timely; the Department appears not to have ever expunged sensitive information from the database, though it is available to all sworn officers and contains personal data such as social security numbers. FIC cards and the FIC database are also of little use as documentation of Terry stops. Although a Terry stop requires a factual basis to establish that a crime is about to be or has been committed, neither the physical FIC card nor database has any place to list the suspected crime. Moreover, FICs lack a narrative portion for the officer to specifically articulate the basis for the stop. Overall, we found that the Department’s exclusive focus on the number of FICs prepared may institutionalize and encourage officers to make illegal stops.
Recently, NOPD acknowledged that the Department’s staggering volume of arrests for low-level offenses is counter-productive. In November 2010, according to the Times-Picayune, the Superintendent advised the City Council that officers would no longer make arrests based on outstanding traffic or misdemeanor warrants from neighboring parishes, noting that to do so “simply does not make sense, economical or common.” We believe that with this pledge the Department has taken a significant and positive step. Nonetheless, we found the emphasis on “activity,” defined as numbers of encounters such as stops, field interview cards, and arrests—at the expense of a more deliberate focus on problem-solving—to be an ingrained part of NOPD’s organizational culture. Although the Superintendent’s commitment to ensuring that officers are engaged, observant, and productive is commendable and appropriate, the Department must recognize that its tactics and chosen police strategy, together with lapses in training and policy, cultivate an atmosphere where officers cut corners and make too many errors that result in constitutional harm and compromise effective law enforcement. This was fully apparent in our review of NOPD arrest reports.
3. Failure to Properly Justify Stops, Searches, and Arrests
We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD’s lack of adequate policy and training regarding search and seizure, along with the Department’s emphasis on arrest numbers, contribute to the frequency of constitutional violations we found reflected in arrest reports. We reviewed 145 randomly-sampled arrest reports to determine whether the officers articulated sufficient facts to justify arrests, searches, or pat downs. Many of the reports that NOPD provided involved circumstances in which NOPD did not initiate the stop or arrest, for example where a store owner detained a suspect, and NOPD merely effectuated the arrest, or where the NOPD responded to a scene after learning of an outstanding warrant. Of those arrests that NOPD initiated—involving either warrantless search or seizure or execution of a search warrant—we found that a significant portion reflected constitutional deficiencies. Our review confirmed serious gaps in knowledge, and included examples of illegal detentions, searches, and pat downs, as well as arrests without probable cause to establish the elements of the crimes. Moreover, because our review encompassed only arrest reports, it would not capture stops and/or searches where the officer did not find contraband or effectuate an arrest, encounters which have a potentially higher rate of impropriety.
- 30 -

Each of these deficient reports reflected not only an NOPD officer’s illegal search or seizure, but also a supervisor’s failure to adequately review the arrest report, as required. For instance, in one case, while the officer had reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop, the report referenced no information or facts to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that the subject was armed and dangerous. Nonetheless, the officer performed a Terry frisk and found a packet containing synthetic marijuana. The report failed to state any reason for the frisk, or what facts, upon feeling the packet, justified a search into the pockets to retrieve the drugs, using the “plain feel rule.” In another case involving an apparently illegal search, officers opened the closed backpack of a suspect without consent, removed an iPod believed to be stolen, and arrested the juvenile suspect.
In another instance, an officer received a “suspicious person” call from the dispatcher, but the arrest records reflected no specific articulable facts to justify a Terry stop. Although the officer made a traffic stop based on the suspicious person call and found stolen property in the car, the report is totally devoid of facts demonstrating a reasonable suspicion to make the stop or probable cause to search the vehicle. A citizen complaint of a “suspicious person” alone is insufficient to authorize a Terry stop; the officer must still have the specific facts to articulate the justification for the detention. See United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that in a Terry stop resulting from a citizen telephone caller the officer must have specific detailed information from the caller that would satisfy the articulable suspicion standard).
We also found examples of arrests for which the reports failed to state probable cause to support a criminal violation. In one case involving a juvenile arrest for curfew violation, the arrest report provides no narrative whatsoever describing why officers believed a curfew violation occurred, and therefore no facts to justify a stop, detention or arrest of the juvenile. In several situations, reports reflected that officers executed search warrants for narcotics at residences, and then transported individuals who were merely present at the scene to districts stations for interrogation, without stating any facts to justify their detention or arrest.
Overall, our review of arrest reports reflected what many within and outside of the Department told us during our review: that inadequate policies and training have left officers without the basic foundation to perform their duties within constitutional boundaries. Further, as discussed in the next section of this Report, these factors increase the likelihood that officers, unable to properly perceive and articulate reasonable suspicion and probable cause, may either stop individuals arbitrarily or rely on impermissible factors such as an individual’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.
IV. DISCRIMINATORY POLICING
We find reasonable cause to believe that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in violation of constitutional and statutory law. Discriminatory policing occurs when police officers and departments unfairly enforce the law—or fail to enforce the law—based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, religion, or LGBT status. Discriminatory policing may take the form of bias-based profiling, in which an officer decides whom to stop, search, or arrest based upon one of the above-mentioned characteristics,
- 31 -

rather than on the subject’s behavior or on credible information identifying the subject as having engaged in criminal activity. Denying police services to some persons or communities because of bias or stereotypes, or failing to take meaningful steps to enable communication, also constitute discriminatory policing. Discriminatory policing may also result when a police department selects particular enforcement and crime prevention tactics in certain communities or against certain individuals for reasons motivated by bias or stereotype.
NOPD has failed to take sufficient steps to detect, prevent, or address bias-based profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or LGBT status, despite widespread concern and troubling racial disparities in arrest rates and other data. We further find that the Department fails to adequately investigate violence against women, including sexual assaults and domestic violence. Additionally, we find that the Department fails to provide critical policing services to New Orleans residents with limited English proficiency.
A. Legal Standards
1. Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective or discriminatory enforcement of the law. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). Discriminatory policing may arise from an explicit classification or a facially neutral law or policy. Id. In the latter case, an Equal Protection violation occurs when the government’s administration of the facially neutral law is motivated by a discriminatory purpose and results in a discriminatory effect. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976); Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 473 (5th Cir. 2001). Evidence of discriminatory effect may include evidence of similarly situated individuals who were not subjected to the enforcement action, statistical evidence, or both. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996). To assess discriminatory intent, courts consider direct and circumstantial evidence, including contemporaneous statements by decision makers, the impact of the challenged policy or action on different groups, patterns of conduct, historical background, substantive departures from normal procedure, and the sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the policy or action. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977). Further, a plaintiff may illuminate discriminatory motives by showing a “clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race.” Id. (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960)). The Fourteenth Amendment does not require proof that the government actor was motivated solely by a discriminatory purpose, but only that such purpose was a contributing factor. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265-66.
This admonition applies equally to discriminatory inaction – such as law enforcement practices that systematically under-serve certain communities. As the Supreme Court has explained, “the Fourteenth Amendment not only prohibits the making or enforcing of laws which shall abridge the privileges of the citizen, but prohibits the states from denying to all persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Denying includes inaction as well as action, and denying the equal protection of the laws includes the omission to protect.” Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 311 (1964) (Goldberg, J. concurring). See also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, n.3 (states may not “selectively deny
- 32 -

its protective services” to certain protected groups without violating the Equal Protection Clause.). Many courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have extended this principle to underenforcement of sexual and domestic violence where such under-enforcement adversely impacts women. See, e.g., Shipp v. McMahon, 234 F.3d 907, 916 (5th Cir. 2000); Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 2004).17
Finally, we note that a number of factors weigh in favor of applying heightened scrutiny in the context of discrimination by law enforcement on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, including a long history of animus and deeply-rooted stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals. As the Attorney General recently noted, “there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Indeed, until very recently, states have ‘demean[ed] the[] existence” of gays and lesbians “by making their private sexual conduct a crime.’” Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to the Hon. John A. Boehner (Feb. 23, 2011) (quoting Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003)). We found this dynamic clearly at work in New Orleans.
2. Safe Streets Act
Discriminatory law enforcement activities are likewise prohibited by the Safe Streets Act, which provides that “[n]o person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(1). NOPD is a program recipient under the Safe Streets Act. The statutory text and implementing regulations make clear that the Act applies not only to intentional discrimination, but also to any law-enforcement practices that disparately impact an identified group based on the enumerated factors. The non-discrimination regulation implementing Section 3789d(c) prohibits program recipients from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination under [§ 3789d(c)], or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, sex, national origin, or religion.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.203.
3. Title VI
Similarly, Title VI provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. NOPD is a program recipient under Title VI.
Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination, see Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 281 (2001), and the Title VI regulations proscribe law-enforcement activities that exert a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at
17 While the cases following Shipp address domestic violence specifically, federal courts have adopted a substantially similar standard for § 1983 claims addressing failure to report and investigate allegations of sexual abuse. See, e.g., Michels v. Greenwood Lake Police Department, 387 F. Supp. 2d 361, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
- 33 -

281-282; see also 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (Title VI funding recipients may not “utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin.”).
The Supreme Court has held that failing to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for limited English proficient (“LEP”) persons is a form of national-origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI regulations. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Executive Order 13166, issued in 2000, reinforced that mandate by directing federal agencies to publish LEP guidance for their financial assistance recipients, consistent with initial general guidance from DOJ. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000). In 2002, DOJ issued final Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. 67 Fed. Reg. 41455 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Guidance).
B. Findings
1. Discriminatory Policing on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT Status
When law enforcement subjects individuals to differential treatment, based on a belief that characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or religion signal a higher risk of criminality or unlawful activity, it constitutes unlawful discrimination, often called “profiling” or “biased policing.” Law enforcement’s consideration of the above listed characteristics in its decision-making is only permissible in very limited circumstances, such as when an officer has specific information, based on credible sources, to “be on the lookout” for specific individuals identified in part by race, ethnicity, or other personal identifying characteristics.
We find reasonable cause to believe that there is a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law with respect to discriminatory policing. NOPD personnel at all levels of the Department not only acknowledged that the community perceives racial and ethnic profiling as a significant problem, but some also expressed their own belief that such discriminatory conduct occurs. Both bias and the perception of bias erode citizens’ inclination to trust and cooperate with law enforcement, impeding effective and safe policing. Although both community members and officers told us that this dynamic is clearly at work in New Orleans, the Department has failed to respond with systems to prevent, detect, and respond to discriminatory policing, and to ensure that police officers are conducting themselves in accordance with constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
The Department’s inadequate policies and training in conducting proper stops, searches, and arrests increase the likelihood that officers, without sufficient understanding of how to identify and articulate suspicion based on behavior and other permissible factors, will instead rely on inappropriate stereotypes and bias in their decision-making. At the same time, NOPD fails to acknowledge the potential for stereotypes and bias to taint police work, on both an individual and an organizational level, and to take steps to prevent this through proactive policies, messaging from leadership, supervision, and training. The Department does not have a sufficiently comprehensive policy regarding discriminatory policing, fails to adhere to those policies that are in place, has no way to track allegations and complaints of racial profiling, and
- 34 -

does not collect, analyze, or report race or ethnicity data for most citizen encounters with police. This failure to counteract bias and promote impartial policing further cultivates an atmosphere in which discriminatory policing can occur unchecked.
The data that we have been able to review, though haphazard and incomplete, points to troubling disparities in treatment of the City’s African-American community, and an urgent need to implement systems to ensure that the Department is providing services and enforcing the law in a fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory manner.
a) Community Concerns
NOPD’s statistics-driven approach to policing appears to contribute to the strong community perception of bias in stops, arrests, and other encounters. Individuals we spoke with, particularly youth, African Americans, ethnic minorities, and members of the LGBT community, told of frequent stops and of being targeted, booked, and arrested for minor infractions. They consistently described how these tactics serve to drive a wedge between the police and the public, antagonizing and alienating members of the community.
Many individuals with whom we spoke directly linked biased policing to what they describe as a focus on maximizing arrests, as opposed to reducing serious crime. In a complaint to PIB, one man alleged that he had been pulled over for “being a black man driving a nice car.” The officers told PIB that they had stopped the man for following another car too closely, ran the driver’s name, and arrested him for having an outstanding warrant for an unpaid seatbelt ticket in another city. The driver, who was handcuffed and then booked into Orleans Parish Prison, wrote in his complaint: “Forgive me if I seem to be prehistoric, but I thought racial profiling was illegal. One good thing happened, [the officer] got his arrest credit.”
Regardless of whether this specific driver was in fact following a car more closely than allowed by law, the complaint clearly conveys the individual’s frustration and belief that officers would never have stopped him for this type of infraction, much less handcuffed and jailed him, but for his race and the Department’s emphasis on arrests for minor violations. Whatever the reason for stops and arrests like this one, there is little question that the frequency and tenor of police encounters has deeply alienated many segments of the New Orleans community. One Orleans Parish criminal court judge told us that “[i]f you are a black teenager and grew up in New Orleans, I guarantee you have had a bad incident with the police.” African-American residents consistently cited negative encounters with police as a source of deep distrust of law enforcement, reporting experiences with discourtesy, harassment, and unwarranted stops, arrests, and uses of force. Community members often raised specific concerns over task forces, whose members wear distinctive military-style uniforms and are referred to throughout the City (and colloquially within the police department) as “jump out boys.” One sergeant, assigned to a community relations position, acknowledged that the task forces “are perceived by the community as jump out boys, dirty cops, the ones who are going to be brutal.”
While task forces can play an important role in combating chronic and complex crime problems, we did not observe NOPD to be providing the kind of direction, hands-on supervision, monitoring, and training in problem-solving that task forces require. The Department relies
- 35 -

heavily on task forces as the sole “enforcers” and agents of crime control for the City, while also measuring productivity by numbers of stops and arrests, and failing to provide officers with adequate training and supervision. This combination invites problematic encounters with citizens, and raises the risk that officers will rely on inappropriate considerations such as race in the course of discharging their duties. Although task forces and specialized units tasked with crime suppression typically generate more citizen complaints than other components of a police department, simply because there is a greater potential for negative encounters with members of the public, NOPD will not begin to repair the reputation of its task forces, particularly among the African-American residents in many of New Orleans’ neighborhoods, without a shift in emphasis towards community policing and adequate training and supervision.
Latinos in New Orleans, especially young Latino males, reported that NOPD officers stop them for unknown reasons or for minor offenses that would not ordinarily merit police attention, and then question them regarding immigration status. Members of the Latino community also told us they believe they are pulled over at a higher rate than other drivers for minor traffic violations, because officers assume from their appearance that they are undocumented immigrants, and therefore driving without a valid license. NOPD’s position on inquiring about immigration status has been in flux; recently, however, the Superintendent clarified that officers may not question victims of crime about whether they are lawfully present in the country. Nonetheless, members of the Latino immigrant worker community, who are frequently victimized because they tend to carry cash on their person, reported a deep reluctance to report crime—either as victims or witnesses. We heard reports of specific incidents in which immigrant workers called to request police assistance after being victimized by crime, but instead of providing assistance, NOPD officers questioned them about their immigration status. Consequently, we found a strong belief among some segments of the Latino community that reporting crime to NOPD may subject the reporter to unwanted attention or harassment. As one participant in a community meeting told us: “Out of fear, we stay quiet.”
Members of the LGBT community complained that NOPD officers subject them to unjustified arrests for prostitution, targeting bars frequented by the community and sometimes fabricating evidence of solicitation for compensation. Moreover, transgender residents reported that officers elect to charge them under Louisiana’s statute criminalizing solicitation of “crimes against nature,” rather than the state’s generic solicitation law. The crimes against nature statute, a statute whose history reflects anti-LGBT sentiment, in part criminalizes the solicitation of an individual “with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation.” Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:89. Until August 2010, a first offense under this statute constituted a felony and required registration in the sex offender registry, unlike the general prostitution statute. Although the state legislature equalized penalties for a first conviction, a second conviction under the crimes against nature statute still requires registration as a sex offender. Persons convicted only of soliciting crimes against nature make up nearly 40 percent of the Orleans Parish sex offender registry. NOPD is charged with monitoring all registrants’ compliance with sex offender registry requirements, raising questions about efficient and effective use of resources to ensure public safety. Further, for the already vulnerable transgender community, inclusion on the sex offender registry further stigmatizes and marginalizes them, complicating efforts to secure jobs, housing, and obtain services at places like publicly-run emergency shelters. Of the registrants convicted of solicitation of a crime against nature, 80
- 36 -

percent are African American, suggesting an element of racial bias as well. Indeed, community members told us they believe some officers equate being African American and transgender with being a prostitute.
Further, members of the City’s LGBT community gave accounts of harassment and even sexual and physical abuse by law enforcement. The community cited a culture within NOPD of insensitivity and animosity, and our own interviews and observations of inappropriate joking underscored a need for sensitivity training and education regarding LGBT issues. A number of community members also complained of a long-standing failure by NOPD to take complaints by LGBT individuals seriously, with several reporting that PIB had failed to act on their complaints of officer misconduct. While NOPD has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, PIB has no system or mechanism for tracking or analyzing complaints alleging bias or misconduct based on sexual orientation or gender expression.
b) Policies, Training, and Accountability
Although the Department acknowledges the perception of biased policing, and officers at the highest levels of the Department acknowledge that it sometimes occurs, NOPD has failed to put in place systems and measures to detect, prevent, and respond to allegations of profiling and other forms of biased policing. The Department’s policies on biased policing contain many essential elements, but are not sufficiently detailed to guide officers’ conduct, and do not contain a sufficiently clear or emphatic statement of purpose. A police agency’s profiling policy should serve to embed principles of bias-free policing and set clear expectations for officers regarding their conduct. We also found that the Department fails to adhere to existing policy in many respects.
The Department’s policy on “bias-based profiling,” Ops. Man. Ch. 41.6, contains many appropriate elements, including a broad statement prohibiting “bias-based profiling,” a restatement of the reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory detentions, and a directive that outside of a credible report, “an individual’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity or any combination thereof, shall not be a factor in determining probable cause for an arrest, the reasonable suspicion for a stop, or asset seizure and forfeiture efforts.” Although this directive is appropriate, the policy is internally inconsistent in that it also defines profiling as reliance “solely” on one of the delineated characteristics—an inappropriately narrow construction.
Chapter 41.6 also requires the Education and Training Division to formulate a lesson plan on bias-based profiling, and to teach this course to each recruit class and to each commissioned employee during his or her yearly in-service training. Although recruits do receive a one-hour block at the Academy, many NOPD personnel until recently had received no in-service training since Hurricane Katrina. In the fall of 2010, DOJ’s Community Relations Service trained more than 300 officers in mediation for law enforcement and responding to allegations of racial profiling. Attendees included sergeants, lieutenants, and command staff, as well as Community Coordinating sergeants and the NOPD Hispanic Liaison officer. The two-day training featured a joint class between officers and community members. The training is a significant step forward, but still leaves the Department far short of the training requirement appropriately required by policy, and from the overarching goal of inculcating attitudes of bias-free policing.
- 37 -

NOPD policies also include some accountability measures and requirements, to which the Department has not adhered. Chapter 41-6 requires PIB to submit an annual statistical summary of all profiling complaints received to the Assistant Superintendent of NOPD’s Operations Bureau, and the Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendent is required to use the summary of citizen concerns, and the information received from the summary of profiling complaints received, to recommend changes to NOPD procedures, practices, in-service instruction, and disciplinary procedures. The policy requires the Assistant Superintendent to forward these recommendations to the Superintendent, with the goal of eliminating racial and ethnic profiling. NOPD has not completed this summary, conducted analysis, or formulated any recommendations pursuant to this policy.
PIB personnel told us they receive very few allegations of racial profiling. This conclusion is unreliable, given the poor systems in place to track racial profiling allegations, and is undercut by our review of PIB cases and policies. That review indicated that NOPD is likely systematically undercounting such complaints, as discussed in this Report’s section on NOPD’s complaint investigation process. Moreover, the perceived lack of integrity and effectiveness of the misconduct complaint process was a theme that we heard from many community members, who frequently expressed reluctance to make complaints against specific officers out of a fear of retaliation and reprisal. One citizen, at a Vietnamese community group meeting, said that “[y]our house gets burglarized and it may take 10, 12 hours from the police to show up. You get a cop in trouble and you’ll see the whole force here.” Another participant told us that “NOPD needs a code of silence to protect citizens, not each other.” These comments point to underlying issues of trust and credibility that are pervasive among some communities, and that may prevent them from making complaints related to bias or other forms of misconduct.
NOPD’s bias-based profiling policy also contains a requirement that when an officer makes a stop, he or she is to radio the dispatcher and provide a description of the subject. While the policy is not clear, the inclusion of this requirement in the policy on “profiling” suggests an intent to record data regarding such factors as race and ethnicity. Yet the Computer-Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) data that we reviewed contained no information regarding subjects, apart from occasional observations regarding apparent race or ethnicity in a section for officer comments. Although the FIC database does contain race and ethnicity data, as discussed in section III of this Report, its use is inconsistent. The FIC card and database also fail to capture such important information as whether a frisk or other search took place, whether contraband was found, and the disposition of the stop. In any case, it is clear that the Department is not collecting data in a sufficiently useful or complete way, and is conducting little or no analyses of the data it does have.
c) Arrest and Force Data
Among other reasons to question NOPD’s crime data, the Department has not reported certain arrest data to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (“UCR”) system for at least several years. This data typically includes the race and ethnicity of persons arrested. The internal arrest data that the Department provided to us upon request was limited and haphazard, but pointed to racial disparity in virtually all categories, with particularly dramatic disparity for African-American
- 38 -

youth under the age of 17. For example, the Department provided recent arrest data for the eight UCR “Index” or “Part 1” offenses, which are the offenses that the FBI uses to produce its Crime Index: homicide, forcible rape, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, larceny over $50, motor vehicle theft, and arson. It recorded arrests, by age, in five different race/ethnicity categories: “Black,” “White,” “Spanish,” “Orientals,” and “Unknown.” For all age groups, the Department recorded no arrests for “Spanish” or “Orientals,” itself a problematic omission.
NOPD’s data indicates that in 2009, the Department arrested 500 African-American males and 65 African-American females under the age of 17 for these offenses. For the same time period, the Department arrested eight white males and one white female in the same age group. Adjusting for population, these figures translate to a ratio of arrest rates for both AfricanAmerican males to white males and African-American females of nearly 16 to 1, a deeply concerning disparity. In 2010, there were 419 arrests of African-American males and 61 of African-American females in this age group for Part 1 offenses, compared with eight of white males and three of white females, resulting in an overall arrest rate ratio of nearly 11 to 1 when adjusted for population. Although a troubling disparity in arrest rates also exists nationwide, it is not nearly as extreme. Nationally in 2009, among those agencies reporting data, the ratio of arrest rates for African American youth to arrest rates for white youth, for the same offenses, was approximately 3:1.
For non-UCR Part I crimes, which include such offenses as simple assault, curfew and loitering offenses, disorderly conduct, drug and drinking offenses, weapon offenses, and driving under the influence, there was a similarly striking level disparity for youth under the age of 17. For example, the black to white arrest rate ratio for males was approximately 11:1 in 2009, and approximately 5:1 in 2010. For both UCR Part I and Part II crimes, racial disparities exist for adult men and women as well, but are closer to or comparable to the level of disparity reported nationwide.
Although we are continuing to review the Department’s data and practices regarding bias-based profiling, what we have found so far is strongly suggestive of differential enforcement for whites and African Americans, most clearly for New Orleans’ youngest residents. Certainly, a disparity in arrest rates between African-American males and white males is not unique to New Orleans, and many people with whom we spoke, both black and white, attributed the starkly different rates primarily to socio-economic factors. However, the level of disparity for youth is so severe and so divergent from nationally reported data that it cannot plausibly be attributed entirely to the underlying rates at which these youth commit crimes, and unquestionably warrants a searching review and a meaningful response from the Department.
NOPD use of force data also shows a troubling racial disparity that warrants a searching inquiry into whether racial bias influences the use of force at NOPD. Of the 27 instances between January 2009 and May 2010 in which NOPD officers intentionally discharged their firearms at people, all 27 of the subjects of this deadly force were African American. In our sample of resisting arrest reports documenting uses of force between January 2009 and May 2010, we found that in 81 of the 96 uses of force that we reviewed (84%), the subject of the force was African American.
- 39 -

More generally, it is critical that Department and City leadership acknowledge community concerns regarding discriminatory policing, consider the ways its policies, training, and supervision may encourage bias, and implement adequate systems to detect, prevent, and remedy bias in its police practices. These measures are essential if the Department is to rebuild itself as one that serves—and is perceived as serving—all segments of the community fairly, equally, and effectively.
2. National Origin Discrimination: Failure to Provide Police Services to Persons with Limited English Proficiency
NOPD is dangerously limited in its ability to communicate effectively and accurately with limited English proficient (“LEP”) victims, witnesses, suspects, and community members, a deficiency that directly undermines public safety, crime prevention, and crime-solving, and results in inferior police services to LEP community members. Language and cultural barriers can put cases and lives at risk by creating safety, evidentiary, and ethical challenges for officers and others. Language and cultural barriers can prevent LEP individuals from understanding their rights, complying with the law, reporting crimes, and receiving meaningful access to law enforcement services and information.
While NOPD recently has taken steps to connect with LEP communities, including the “El Protector” program, which will involve bilingual outreach to Latinos on public safety issues, and a similar program directed to the Vietnamese community, the Department will need to undertake more concerted and comprehensive efforts to ensure that LEP individuals receive meaningful access to vital police services.
a) Failure to Develop a Language Assistance Plan
NOPD has virtually no capacity to provide meaningful access to police services to LEP community members, who in New Orleans are predominantly Latino or of Vietnamese descent. Although demographic data post-Katrina remains imperfect, the Vietnamese community has been an established presence in New Orleans since the mid-1970s, and since the storm the City has seen a significant influx of Latino immigrants. A significant segment of each of these communities speaks little or no English and the presence of both communities in the City has been growing. NOPD relies primarily upon just two officers, one fluent in Spanish and one fluent in Vietnamese, to assist on calls for service and investigations throughout the Department, in addition to performing their regular duties. The Department does not compensate these officers for interpreter services performed while off-duty or provide them with enhanced pay for language fluency; nor does the Department have processes to assess the accuracy of its multilingual officers and train them in carrying out their duties.
Although the Department employs several Vietnamese-speaking officers and between fifteen and twenty Spanish-speaking officers, one member of NOPD leadership acknowledged that “there is no real incentive” for officers with language capacity to provide interpretation, making many “reluctant” to do so. Indeed, the lack of a structured language assistance program has actually created disincentives for officers to utilize their language skills. Those officers who do volunteer to assist with interpretation needs appear to be subject to receiving calls from units
- 40 -

throughout the Department at all times of the day or night, while off duty or on vacation, and on their personal cell phones.
The Department’s Bureau of Policy and Review has engaged in limited efforts to formalize Spanish-language interpretation for NOPD, and in December 2008 issued a General Order setting out official personnel policies with respect to scheduling an interpreter, appropriate compensation for interpreters, and interpreter responsibilities under a new program. This General Order also provided for overtime pay for Spanish-language interpretation, though the process for receiving overtime compensation was complex and cumbersome. But in April 2010, NOPD ceased paying any overtime. The General Order did not specify the interpretation policy for any non-Spanish language, the process for translating any vital documents, the training necessary for becoming an interpreter, or any required training for officers on how to work with interpreters.
For the period between December 2008 and April 2010, the Department’s primary Spanish interpreter, who now also serves as the Hispanic Liaison officer, kept a log documenting that he assisted on more than 350 calls for service, illustrating the considerable demand for these services. There has been no comparable tracking of calls for service by monolingual Vietnamese speakers, nor any efforts to formalize Vietnamese-language interpretation and translation. The Department’s few Vietnamese speakers have always provided interpreter assistance on an informal basis.
Apart from the December 2008 General Order, which contained very little substantive guidance, the Department has no formal language assistance plan, nor any policies or procedures for: determining the number of LEP individuals within its jurisdiction; determining the languages spoken by LEP individuals within its jurisdiction; collecting and recording primary language data for LEP individuals encountered; collecting and recording the number of LEP victims and witnesses who seek NOPD services; informing victims and witnesses of the availability of language assistance; interrogating and interviewing LEP individuals; or responding to and tracking citizen complaints filed by LEP individuals. The Department similarly lacks protocols to identify and train multilingual staff; assess the accuracy of multilingual staff’s translation and interpretation skills; train NOPD officers on how to work with interpreters in the field; and train all NOPD personnel on providing language assistance services to LEP individuals. Finally we found no evidence of any systems to identify and translate vital documents such as: consent to search forms; witness and victim statement forms; citation forms; victim rights notification forms, and citizen complaint forms.
b) Impact on LEP Communities
NOPD’s lack of a formal and comprehensive plan to serve individuals who have limited English proficiency results in the provision of inferior and, in some instances, no police assistance to a growing segment of the City’s population. We spoke to many officers, both with and without foreign language capacity, who described communication barriers as a significant problem. Community members and individual officers also told us that a Department-wide lack of cultural competency further impedes communication and effective policing of the City’s Latino and Vietnamese communities. No one in the Department was able to articulate how
- 41 -

NOPD serves LEP residents when one of the “unofficial” interpreters is off-duty, in court, or otherwise unavailable. Some officers said that when an officer who could interpret was not available they used gestures or drew pictures in an attempt to communicate. We heard from officers with language fluency that they receive frequent phone calls directly from languageminority members of the public who seek a more direct and efficient police response.
During an August 2010 ride-along, we observed firsthand a delay in response to a call for service from a victim of domestic violence, apparently because she was a monolingual Spanishspeaker. It further appeared that the officer may not have responded at all if not pressed by the DOJ investigator and if the DOJ investigator had not happened to be bilingual. After the officer continued to patrol the district for 30 minutes following receipt of the complaint, the DOJ investigator inquired about what calls had come in through dispatch. The officer initially skipped over the domestic violence call, but then asked the DOJ investigator whether he spoke Spanish. When the investigator replied that he did, the officer responded to the call. Upon arrival at the scene, the victim, who had visible injuries, said she had been waiting more than an hour for a response. Later, the officer explained that there was only one person on the shift capable of serving as an interpreter, and that the individual was often difficult to reach.
In addition to delaying or preventing response to complaints of serious violence, the Department’s inability to provide language assistance, in situations where officers do respond, can lead to family members or children serving as interpreters. This can be especially dangerous in domestic violence cases where using a family member to interpret may discourage the victim from speaking or, in cases where the abuser is the interpreter, may further isolate an LEP victim whose words are purposefully misinterpreted.
The direct observation described above is consistent with reports we received not only from officers but also from members of the community. Community members described significant consequences resulting from language barriers in their dealings with NOPD— including delays in or denial of services, incidents where victims were mistaken for suspects, and situations where encounters escalated unnecessarily due to gaps in communication. At one community meeting, a monolingual Spanish speaker reported calling police on four different nights regarding domestic violence, but receiving a response only once. She attributed the lack of response to the Department’s failure to understand her. At another meeting, a participant said that she was arrested in front of her small child after failing to comprehend and follow an officer’s orders. This encounter began when she attempted to intervene on behalf of another person being arrested. Officers themselves recognized the dangers inherent in NOPD’s lack of language capacity; one gave the scenario of a victim of a robbery, waving his hands in agitation, and unable to communicate with the responding officer: “So the victim gets cuffed or restrained.”
We also heard accounts of Spanish-speaking individuals being cited or arrested themselves after calling police to report wage theft or other conflicts with employers, because an officer was unable to understand or sort out precisely what was taking place. Workers also perceived that officers were more likely to understand and consequently side with employers, who generally speak English. One worker, who filed a complaint with PIB in November 2009, alleged that he called police to report a physical assault by an employer, but that instead of fully
- 42 -

investigating, the responding officers interrogated him about his immigration status and cited him for disturbing the peace. PIB sent the complainant a response letter in March 2010, stating that the allegations could not be substantiated. The investigation noted, however, that because the responding officers were “[u]nable to resolve the dispute at the time of the incident, the officers issued a summons to both men for disturbing the peace so the matter could be resolved in court,” seeming to support the complainant’s allegation that he was inappropriately cited. The investigation also pointed to some confusion over the officers’ questions on the scene, which the PIB investigator attributed to the interpretation skills of a community organizer who was assisting the worker. Irrespective of whether the investigator’s conclusion was valid, the incident reinforces the need for NOPD to develop its own capacity to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access to law enforcement services.
This complainant submitted his complaint to PIB with the assistance of a local community group that works with and represents Spanish-speaking day laborers. But in general, Spanish or Vietnamese speakers who wish to make a complaint regarding police conduct have very limited options. A monolingual Spanish or Vietnamese speaker attempting to make a complaint at a district could only do so if he or she were fortunate enough to find someone present to interpret. PIB officials said they would probably have to call in an officer from outside the bureau to interpret a complaint of misconduct from a non-English speaker. This raises serious concerns about the confidentiality of complaints and integrity of the investigation process when persons with limited English proficiency are involved.
3. Gender-Biased Policing: Failure to Investigate Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
Inadequate policies and procedures, deficiencies in training, and extraordinary lapses in supervision have contributed to a systemic breakdown in NOPD handling of sexual assault investigations. NOPD has misclassified large numbers of possible sexual assaults, resulting in a sweeping failure to properly investigate many potential cases of rape, attempted rape, and other sex crimes. Additionally, in situations where the Department pursued sexual assault complaints, the investigations were seriously deficient, marked by poor victim interviewing skills, missing or inadequate documentation, and minimal efforts to contact witnesses or interrogate suspects. The documentation we reviewed was replete with stereotypical assumptions and judgments about sex crimes and victims of sex crimes, including misguided commentary about the victims’ perceived credibility, sexual history, or delay in contacting the police. NOPD recently acknowledged its serious deficits in responding to sex crimes, and has taken some significant remedial steps. NOPD and the City will need to build on these efforts to bring about the extensive and sustained change necessary to effectively and appropriately respond to these serious crimes.
We also found systemic deficiencies in NOPD’s handling of domestic violence cases, although not to the degree evident in sex crimes. The City benefits from the presence of the New Orleans Family Justice Center (“NOFJC”), a federally-funded center designed to provide comprehensive services to victims of domestic violence by integrating law enforcement, prosecution, civil legal services, and advocacy in one location. The NOFJC, which is managed by the non-profit Catholic Charities, opened two years after Hurricane Katrina and now houses NOPD’s Domestic Violence Unit. Although the existence of the NOFJC appears to have had a
- 43 -

salutary effect on NOPD’s handling of domestic violence complaints, we found significant weaknesses in the Department’s policies and practices with respect to responding to and investigating these cases.
a) Sexual Assault Policies, Training, and Supervision
The Department’s policies covering sex crimes investigations are set forth primarily in Ops. Man. Ch. 42, Criminal Investigations. Department leadership acknowledged that these policies are outdated and in need of revision. The current policies are short on substantive content, failing to provide guidance with respect to such basic, essential functions as: initial and follow-up victim interview protocol; collaboration with victim advocates; protocols for forensic examinations of victims; suspect interviews and forensic examinations; evidence preservation and crime scene management in the sexual assault context; and services/assistance to be offered to victims.
Rape crisis advocates, representatives from the DA’s Office, and officers themselves told us that additional training is urgently needed for sex crimes detectives and supervisors, as well as patrol officers, who are generally the first responders to a complaint of sexual assault. Sex Crimes Unit detectives described their training as having been largely “on-the-job” for the last several years. Although some reported attending courses on interviewing and interrogation on an ad hoc basis, the Department has not required in-service training for detectives for at least three years. Specialized training in such critical areas as victim interviewing skills, investigating nonstranger and drug and alcohol facilitated sexual assault, and documenting sexual assaults are essential.
We further found that supervision of the Sex Crimes Unit has been grossly inadequate. In the context of sex crimes, it is essential that supervisors clarify expectations of investigators; ensure that complaints are being classified, investigated, and cleared appropriately; enhance cooperation between rape-crisis centers and forensic examination programs; and communicate early and effectively with prosecutors. Community stakeholders, prosecutors, and officers alike reported that this type of supervision and leadership has been virtually absent from the Sex Crimes Unit, for at least several years. In June 2010, the Department took the long-overdue step of installing a new commander of the Sex Crimes Unit. The Unit’s new commander has prioritized collaborative, victim-centered problem-solving with the DA’s Office and rape-crisis advocates, who uniformly report improved working relationships with the Unit and its leadership.
b) Classification of Sexual Assault Complaints
Under the FBI’s UCR program, police departments provide statistics regarding reports of certain crimes, including forcible rape and attempted forcible rape. The UCR program defines forcible rape as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” and specifies that “‘[a]gainst her will’ includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of her youth).” Many types of sexual assault that fall outside of the UCR’s definition of forcible rape still
- 44 -

constitute felonies under Louisiana law, and the Sex Crimes Unit is charged with fully investigating these offenses.
Departments must include reports of forcible rape or attempted forcible rape in their UCR data irrespective of whether the victim cooperates or an arrest is made. In situations where investigators determine that a report is false or baseless—meaning that the evidence shows no crime occurred or was attempted—the department may designate a report as “unfounded.” Departments must still include these reports in their UCR statistics for Index Crimes, under the category of unfounded crimes.
In 2009, NOPD reported 98 forcible rapes and 179 homicides, when in virtually every other city the number of rapes far outpace the number of homicides.18 By mid-August 2010, the Sex Crimes Unit had investigated just 54 UCR rapes for the year, along with 49 non-UCR investigations, which include “carnal knowledge” or statutory rape, sexual battery, oral rape, rapes of males, and sexual assault complaints deemed “unfounded.” These figures, particularly in a city with high tourism and multiple colleges and universities, are strikingly low. Based on our review of the documents and interviews with NOPD and other stakeholders, we concluded that the Department likely had diverted many complaints of possible sexual assault from being fully investigated by classifying them as non-criminal “Signal 21s,” the Department’s code for miscellaneous complaints. The Times-Picayune reported NOPD’s extensive use of Signal 21 designation in June 2009, putting the Department on notice about the potential misclassification of sexual assault complaints.
Use of codes and signals for classification of complaints varies widely across police departments. There are often situations where it is appropriate to categorize a complaint with a “miscellaneous” or “non-criminal” type designation—namely, when the elements of a crime are clearly not present, or when a third party reports a crime but the reported victim denies that one occurred. Our review determined that NOPD has used the Signal 21 code far more expansively, effectively shutting down investigation for a significant proportion of possible sex crimes. In 2008, the Sex Crimes Unit of NOPD responded to 230 complaints of alleged sexual assault; of those 230 complaints, the Department classified 144 – or almost 63 percent – as “Signal 21” miscellaneous complaints. In 2009, NOPD used the miscellaneous complaint code for 112 of 261 total sexual assault complaints, or 43 percent. By mid-August 2010, the Unit had classified 81 out of 184 complaints of possible sexual assault received in 2010, or about 44 percent, as Signal 21s. In the vast majority of these cases, sex crimes detectives filled out a Major Offense Report Form (“MORF”), coded the disposition as “NAT,” or “Necessary Action Taken,” and undertook no further review, victim follow-up, or investigation.
The Department’s practice, according to the Sex Crimes Unit’s caseload reports, has been to give complaints the Signal 21 designation not only in situations where the elements of a crime do not appear to exist, but also where the detective concludes, after only an initial investigation, that there is: “an uncooperative victim;” “the victim is unsure of what occurred or unsure if she
18 According to 2009 UCR data: In New York City there were 471 homicides and 832 rapes; Los Angeles 312 homicides and 903 rapes; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 39 homicides and 116 rapes; Austin, Texas 22 homicides and 265 rapes; Las Vegas, Nevada 111 homicides and 698 rapes; Louisville, Kentucky 62 homicides and 230 rapes; and Nashville, Tennessee 77 homicides and 262 rapes.
- 45 -

wants to report the incident;” “if the evidence refutes the allegation;” or if there are “conflicting statements.” The caseload reports also note that “If we can prove that the allegation is false during the initial investigation that’s a MORF.”
Indeed, the Signal 21 reports that we reviewed clearly reflected a focus on and effort to, from the outset, “prove an allegation is false”—a conclusion that is virtually impossible to draw based on a cursory investigation or preliminary victim interview. Many of the reports emphasized the victim’s inconsistent statements, gaps in knowledge or memory, or inability to give a good description of the perpetrator, none of which demonstrate that an allegation is false. Such reactions, common for sexual assault victims in crisis or suffering from posttraumatic stress, should not be used to label a report of assault as false. The determination that a report of sexual assault is false should only be made if the evidence, obtained in a thorough investigation, establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.
Additionally, the Signal 21 reports often expressed skepticism about victims’ credibility, opined on victims’ possible motivations for lying, and expressed judgments about delayed reporting, an extremely common dynamic in sexual assault cases. In many instances, the investigation seemed to focus on the trustworthiness of the victim herself, rather than on the alleged crime; indeed, in a number of reports the investigator noted checking the victim’s criminal history. Among the justifications given for classifying a complaint as a Signal 21 were: history of prostitution; mental illness; having previously made a “similar” report in another city; having “lied” about being arrested in the past; and “a possibility that the victim lied to the police” in an unrelated matter. One investigator classified the signal as a 21 due to “the victim staying out at night knowing she has a live in boyfriend of 14 years, and the victim not really concern with the rape only the morning after pill.”
In arriving at these conclusions, investigators appeared to rely on initial victim interviews in which detectives asked leading or blaming questions, or on stereotypes about how victims of sexual assault should behave. In many of the Signal 21 reports, detectives asked victims why they did not resist, why they put themselves in certain situations, and why they did not immediately disclose the assault to police, family, or friends. In one report, the detective asked the victim “if she screamed or resisted the perpetrator,” and when the victim replied that she did not, he “then asked why she did not resist. The victim stated the perpetrator was aggressive and she was afraid, the victim then stated she did not think anyone would help her.” In another report, the detective commented that the victim “seemed very calm and unrattled seeing as though the aforementioned account had just taken place.” He also asked her why she did not leave the French Quarter earlier with some family members, “rather than walk alone in the cold on a dark street at that time in the morning.” Later in the same interview, he asked her whether she had a cell phone on her, and when she replied that she did, he “asked her why she didn’t try to call 911” during the assault.
In short, our review of Signal 21 reports found that NOPD routinely asks questions that are likely to heighten many victims’ feelings of shame and self-blame, fear of not being believed, and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. Such interview tactics, particularly at the critical initial stage of a sexual assault investigation, may well intensify a victim’s reluctance to cooperate with an investigation or prosecution. This effect was clearly evident in a number of
- 46 -

anonymous survey responses that victims completed after receiving treatment at area hospitals. One victim said she felt that detectives were “there to catch me in a lie, not to help. They were unconcerned and analyzing my story to find fault and not the truth.” Another said the detective “seemed bored” while questioning her, and that she “got one thing out of sequence and he seemed annoyed.” A third victim said she “felt pressured into not pressing charges/not cooperating,” and another said the detective told her “there was nothing to report, that NOPD didn’t have the manpower to handle my case, and I could go to the hospital or urgent care if I wanted.”
In addition, the Signal 21 reports reflect an NOPD practice likely to discourage victims from pursuing prosecution. Files indicated that NOPD routinely has victims fill out and sign a document called a “Voluntary Victim/Witness” form, stating that they do not want to file charges or proceed with an investigation or prosecution. The form also includes information on the content and penalty of Louisiana’s “Criminal Mischief” and “Injuring Public Records” statutes. Use of this form at such an early stage is a poor practice that may deter many from participating in an investigation and potential prosecution.
NOPD has acknowledged serious problems in the way it classifies sexual assault complaints, and recently provided 93 Signal 21 reports from 2009 to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (“LA Commission”). The state agency conducted an audit of the reports and concluded that 9 were reportable as UCR rapes or attempted rapes, and another two dozen could have been scored as a different UCR reportable offense (such as Assault or Aggravated Assault). The LA Commission’s focus was on UCR-reportable offenses, excluding from review many other possible sex crimes that under Louisiana law may have been coded inappropriately and should be thoroughly investigated. The LA Commission’s audit also listed several dozen complaints as “unfounded”—irrespective of the fact that they were never thoroughly investigated—without explaining why the unfounded designation was appropriate.
The Department, to its credit, recently reopened the nine rape/attempted rape complaints identified by the LA Commission, along with an additional 21 identified through internal review. The request for the audit and the performance of an internal review were significant and positive initial steps. Nonetheless, as described above, our review suggested that many more complaints may have been coded inappropriately and diverted from full and thorough investigation. More significantly, the underlying deficiencies—particularly in the areas of victim interviewing, sensitivity, documentation, and an understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault—are pervasive and have yet to be addressed.
c) Inadequate Sexual Assault Investigations
We also found that even where assaults were properly classified, those investigations were inadequate in several important respects. As in Signal 21 documentation, the investigative reports suggested problematic interviewing techniques such as blaming or leading questions, and stereotypes regarding how a victim behaves in a “real” case of rape. In one interview, of a teenager who reported being assaulted by her mother’s boyfriend, the detective wrote that the “victim was asked if she resisted and asked to explain. The victim stated that she told him to stop and he didn’t. She stated she didn’t yell or scream, nor did she try to use her cell phone to
- 47 -

call her mom or the police. The victim states that the accused never threatened or implied to have a weapon or cause her physical harm. In fact, the victim states that accused is smaller than her in weight and around the same height.” The detective also noted that the “victim’s demeanor and her mother’s were very nonchalant and unwavered by the police inquisition.”
In some cases it was difficult to separate poor interviewing from poor report-writing. Many reports omitted critical details, such as descriptions of victim injuries, or results of forensic exams or requested laboratory analysis. Additionally, detectives wrote their reports in the third person, an unusual practice that results in confusing and hard-to-follow narratives. In virtually every investigation we reviewed, victim and witness statements contained no first-person quotes, and were essentially a synopsis of what the detective believed he heard the victim or witness say. Detectives appeared to routinely sanitize victims’ accounts or used clinical language that civilians, and especially victims of sexual assault, do not typically use. It is critically important that investigators learn to preserve a victim’s own detailed statement.
Investigative reports also did not compile or contain any reports prepared by patrol officers or first responders. We learned that patrol officers do not prepare any reports themselves when responding to a sexual assault complaint, although they do write reports for all other crimes, including major and violent offenses. Instead, we were told that sex crimes detectives are called out to every complaint, and they interview patrol officers about what they observed, just as they would any other witness. We found no evidence of such interviews in the investigative reports, however, which lacked the important information typically captured by first responders, such as “outcry” statements by the victim, appearance of the scene, or whether the victim required medical assistance. Although patrol officers will need intensive training in dealing with sexual assault victims, conducting and recording preliminary interviews, and preparing reports, it is crucial to successful investigation and prosecution that first responding officers accurately document what they see, do, and hear. Additionally, having a record of uniformed officers’ actions in these cases will assist the Department in identifying training needs and ensuring that first responders and investigators treat victims appropriately. Although detectives told us that patrol officers call them almost immediately to respond to a complaint of sexual assault, uniformed officers are still a victim’s first interaction with law enforcement, an interaction that is likely to influence a victim’s decision to participate in an investigation.
Detectives routinely failed to seek out and interview witnesses and interrogate suspects. In fact, both officers and prosecutors told us that until recently the Sex Crimes Unit had an “unofficial” but clear policy of not conducting interviews of suspects, and instead built cases based on victim testimony. Our review confirmed that detectives rarely questioned suspects, even in situations where a suspect was positively identified in a line-up and arrested. In one report, although a suspect was identified, arrested, and waived his rights, the one and only statement that the detective documented was the suspect’s denial of having been involved in any rape. There was no evidence of any effort to question the suspect about the details of the incident or elicit any additional information. Fortunately, the new commander of the Sex Crimes Unit has significant background and expertise in interrogations, and has prioritized changing policy and practice in this area. We learned that he recently secured private funding to purchase video equipment for an interrogation room.
- 48 -

We also found that investigators failed to follow standard guidelines governing collection of physical and forensic evidence. In one case, the detective failed to bring the victim to University Hospital for a forensic examination due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the date of the assault – approximately 54 hours, which is well within the national standards for obtaining forensic examinations. In 2004, the National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations (Adult /Adolescents) increased the time frame for forensic exams from 72 hours to 96 hours following an assault and many agencies collect biological evidence in a forensic exam up to 120 hours (5 days) after the assault. In another case, the detective informed the victim that “because she had reported the incident over 72 hours after it happened, there would be no chance of getting physical evidence.” In addition to blaming the victim for her delay in reporting, the detective’s statement overlooks the possibility of obtaining physical evidence from clothing or from the victim’s car, where the assault allegedly occurred.
Another significant issue confronting NOPD’s investigations of sexual assaults is its crime lab’s lack of DNA analysis capacity. The Department has sent evidence to the state police crime laboratory for analysis, but at the time of our review, there were 800 untested forensic examination kits in NOPD’s property room. NOPD recently announced an NIJ-sponsored partnership to transfer backlogged kits to Marshall University, at a rate of 60 per month. Additionally, the Department has sought funding to hire two DNA Criminalists to work at the state laboratory (pending funding and construction for their own DNA lab).
d) Inadequate Domestic Violence Policies, Procedures, and Training
Ops. Man. Ch. 42.4 sets out basic procedures for making domestic violence arrests and carrying out investigations, and specifically requires that officers prepare a report documenting every domestic violence call for service. Additionally, the commander of the Domestic Violence Unit, who, like the Sex Crimes Unit commander, recently assumed his position, provided us with a second operations manual specific to his Unit. He indicated that he is revising the Unit’s operations manual, which contains minimal guidance for detectives or other officers responding to domestic violence calls; it merely lays out the mission, goals, and broad responsibilities of detectives, listing such duties as “conduct[ing] follow-up investigation,” “ensur[ing] that appropriate resources are provided,” and “provid[ing] helpful information to victims.”
Neither NOPD’s Operations Manual nor the Domestic Violence Unit’s manual contains specific guidance regarding such important functions as: protocols for 911 operators taking domestic violence calls; initial entry and preliminary investigation of domestic violence scenes; identifying and documenting victim injuries; or procedures for follow-up investigations. The absence of specific guidance for officers and detectives not only impedes effective response and investigation, but also creates potentially dangerous conditions for victims. As an example, the Department has no specific protocols regarding how to safely communicate with victims, either during initial encounters or future contacts, a serious deficiency in the domestic violence context. In a survey administered by the NOFJC, a victim noted that she “[i]nformed the dispatcher to inform the officers that were coming out not to let the batterer know I was the one calling or that I was inside the house. They did it anyway. He wasn’t arrested but was asked to leave my property. I had plenty of reasons why I asked them to do it this way. They did the way they
- 49 -

wanted to do it. What they did, I could have done myself. To me, they are the reason this has escalated.”
e) Inadequate Domestic Violence Investigations
At the time of our review, the Domestic Violence Unit was staffed by only three detectives, which was wholly inadequate to address the volume of the Department’s domestic violence calls and provide appropriate follow-up and services to victims. In one NOFJC survey, a victim noted that the center “[r]eferred me to a detective who never called.” As of July 2010, there had been 6,200 calls for service regarding domestic violence since the beginning of the year. Of those cases, about 1200 had been assigned to Domestic Violence Unit detectives for follow-up, while another 2700 were fully handled by officers in the individual districts, though subject to a superficial “review” by domestic violence detectives. We were told that at least 1500 reports were “missing” due to the recent transition to a new reporting system.
Due to the high volume of domestic violence cases, the three detectives assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit are not permitted to do field work, severely restricting their ability to conduct any meaningful follow-up investigation. And consistent with this, the reviewed reports did not reflect any follow-up interviews of witnesses. Although officers generally photographed and documented injuries at the scene, we did not find any evidence that they were returning to take photographs at a later point, when injuries might become more visible. Nor did we find that officers were seeking communication tapes of dispatch calls for inclusion in reports, though such follow-up appeared appropriate in many cases. In general, it appears that substantive follow-up investigation is largely handled by the Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit of the DA’s office. As with sex crimes, the Department’s involvement in investigating a case appears to end at the point of arrest, although both the DA’s office and the Department reported that they are beginning to cultivate a more collaborative relationship on both sex crimes and domestic violence.
Patrol officers and district investigative officers handle the vast majority of on-scene investigations in domestic violence cases. Officers, prosecutors, and advocates reported that training for these officers has long been grossly inadequate, compromising the quality, completeness, and consistency of on-scene investigations and written reports. In some cases officers did a thorough job of documenting the appearance of the crime scene, describing injuries, and capturing spontaneous statements in direct quotes. In many others, however, officers failed to solicit or document key facts regarding past history of domestic violence or assault, or include sufficient information to identify the primary aggressor in a situation. Officers are also failed to note symptoms of strangulation or ask appropriate follow-up questions related to strangulation.
In most instances, efforts to find and interview witnesses were minimal. In one case, for example, the report reflected that a neighbor had heard screams and called 911, yet there is no indication that the officer interviewed or attempted to interview the neighbor. In another, the report suggests that a male friend of the victim’s was present, and involved in the events that led
- 50 -

to the disturbance, yet the report reflects no attempt to interview him or obtain his contact information.
Additionally, the reports reflect that officers virtually never interview child witnesses, even in cases where children are present at the scene and listed on the domestic violence reporting form. It may be that officers believe that children must be interviewed by a forensic interviewing specialist, but we found no evidence that such follow-up interviews were taking place, or that officers were obtaining even minimal statements from children. While very sensitive, properly-trained officers can interview child witnesses. Interviews of suspects are also the rare exception, and officers do not appear to interview suspects when they arrest on a warrant, despite routinely providing Miranda warnings. The reports do reflect that officers reliably pursue arrest warrants when suspects have left the scene.
NOPD has taken some recent significant steps to remediate deficiencies in its overall response to domestic violence. Over several months between April and December 2010, the Department sent nearly 300 officers to training on domestic violence, provided in a collaborative effort by the USAO, the State Attorney General’s Office, and the Louisiana Supreme Court Protection Order Registry. Additionally, as in sex crimes, the Department named a new commander of the Domestic Violence Unit, who appears committed to partnering with advocates in the community to improve the Unit’s performance.
Nonetheless, the Department has yet to fully leverage the considerable tools and resources available to enhance its response to domestic violence. For example, none of the reports we reviewed contained a victim referral to the NOFJC. Further, the NOFJC has urged implementation of an Integrated Protocol for Law Enforcement, which NOPD has reviewed but has yet to endorse or adopt as policy. The Integrated Protocol reflects best practices and contains the specific and detailed guidance that NOPD currently lacks. Additionally, the NOFJC’s technical assistance provider, the National Family Justice Center Alliance, recently conducted a “Snapshot audit,” a review of each aspect of the NOFJC’s service provision designed to improve programs and identify training issues. The Snapshot, which involved record and data review, interviews with service providers, and focus groups with victims, made many findings consistent with ours and included a comprehensive set of recommendations that we urge NOPD to carefully review.
V. RECRUITMENT
NOPD’s longstanding failure to prioritize the recruitment of high-quality candidates contributes to the chronic, Department-wide problems we observed, including inappropriate and disrespectful conduct in the community, corruption, unnecessary uses of force, and improper stops and searches. Good police officers possess problem-solving skills, emotional maturity, sound judgment, interpersonal and communication skills, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse cross-section of the community. If the Department is to attract a workforce capable of policing ethically and effectively, it will need to develop a strategic recruiting plan focused on attracting recruits with these qualities.
- 51 -

We found NOPD’s recruitment program to be anemic, entirely passive, and lacking clear goals, plans, or accountability. NOPD’s Recruitment and Applicant Unit, which has a staff of six commissioned law enforcement officers, has no plan to seek out and recruit qualified candidates. Recruiters were unclear about the scope of their authority or obligations, and report having done little since Hurricane Katrina to find or attract highly-qualified applicants, apart from distributing literature at job fairs, colleges, and universities.
City policy decentralizes recruitment efforts among various departments and functions, primarily NOPD’s Recruitment Unit and the Civil Service Commission, and also delegates some informal authority to a non-profit entity, the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation (NOPJF). Consequently, recruiting efforts are unfocused and reactive, and there is little accountability for outcomes. While NOPD recruiters told us they rely in part on the Civil Service Commission for recruiting, Civil Service employees told us recruitment was the NOPD’s job; they described their primary responsibility as administering the Civil Service Exam and providing administrative oversight to the hiring process. No one we spoke to identified, as their primary goal or responsibility, recruitment of high-quality applicants who share the Department’s values and can help it achieve its mission.
The Department has long been aware of deficiencies in its recruitment efforts, yet for years failed to act meaningfully to address them. In many ways, in fact, leadership decisions appear to have compounded these problems. In the past, extremely noncompetitive entry pay reportedly impeded the Department’s ability to attract strong candidates. With entry pay increases several years ago, that obstacle has diminished (although it appears that noncompetitive pay increases for officers may still be hindering retention of good candidates). In more recent years, the failure to attract strong candidates appears linked to NOPD’s lack of any strategic recruiting plan, along with the pressure the Department was under to hire new police officers after Hurricane Katrina. NOPD hired hundreds of officers during a relatively short time period; one estimate is that 400 officers were hired during the three year period following Katrina. In its press to hire these officers, NOPD reportedly lowered its recruiting standards, essentially removing the physical agility requirement and asking the Civil Service Commission to score the written portion of the application less vigorously.
In 2006, NOPD asked the RAND Gulf States Policy Institute (RAND GSPI) to review its recruitment process. RAND GSPI’s 2007 report observed that Recruitment Unit officers spent most of their time on the internet performing background checks; that NOPD had no specific selection criteria to identify successful recruiters; and that the Department provided no training to members of its Recruitment Unit. The study also found that NOPD made no attempt to collaborate with institutions that could be a source of well-qualified recruits. After its review, the RAND GSPI made simple and common sense recommendations to NOPD to help establish a more successful recruitment process—recommendations that the Department has ignored until relatively recently.
Predictably, these deficiencies have hampered NOPD’s ability to hire quality recruits. At the time of our review, the attrition rate for the latest recruit class was nearly sixty percent. Of the sixty-six recruits that successfully completed the recruitment and background investigation, thirty-nine were eliminated from the training class. NOPD expended thousands of dollars to test,
- 52 -

train, and conduct background checks on what were clearly marginal applicants, a waste of funds that NOPD could have better used in a more targeted recruiting process. Nonetheless, NOPD’s decision to eject unqualified candidates before they became officers was the appropriate one. In interviews with NOPD officers at all ranks, we heard the consistent complaint that the Training Academy routinely graduated police recruits who were sub-par and not fit for duty.
Recently, NOPD has begun to make changes to its recruiting process to ensure a stronger pool of applicants is selected to attend the academy. Working with the Civil Service Commission, NOPD has made the physical agility portion of the exam more stringent, and has instituted a requirement that applicants for police officer have at least 60 hours of college credits from an accredited college or university, or two years of full-time military service. The Department is also launching a partnership with a local community college, through which cadets will work twenty hours per week at NOPD while attending school. Once the cadets have earned sufficient college hours and completed certain requirements, including taking courses in a foreign language, they will be eligible to apply to NOPD’s recruit academy. While research shows that most participants in junior cadet programs do not become police officers, these efforts appear to be cost-effective and can serve to improve police-community relations. Although the Department has a great deal of work ahead to attract the most highly-qualified workforce possible, we commend its recent focus on these efforts.
The Department will also need to focus on meeting its particular need for officers who can communicate and form partnerships with all segments of the New Orleans community— which includes efforts to attract a diverse applicant pool. NOPD’s policies specifically require the involvement of minority employees in formal recruiting presentations and pre-employment counseling programs, as well as outreach to community organizations for recruitment assistance. See Ops. Man. Ch. 32, Recruitment. Although these guidelines make clear that NOPD acknowledges the value and importance of a diverse workforce, the Department’s practices with respect to recruitment depart significantly from its policies. Members of the diverse community groups with whom we spoke consistently reported that the Department has not reached out to them for any assistance in recruitment efforts. Nor has the Department sought the assistance or leveraged the community contacts of employees such as the Hispanic Liaison Officer. Such outreach to community organizations and stakeholders, and efforts to elicit their active support, is critical to both strengthening and maintaining community ties, and ensuring that the Department is in the best possible position to serve all of its citizens.
As we discuss in section III.B.2 of this Report, NOPD is particularly ill-equipped to serve the City’s significant Vietnamese and Latino populations. The Vietnamese community has long comprised a sizable minority within the City, and the Latino population has grown substantially in the last five years, with Latino laborers participating heavily in the City’s post-Katrina rebuilding efforts. We heard from both community organizations and those within NOPD that recruiting officers with language skills and cultural awareness is critical to serving these communities. Although these qualities do not necessarily or exclusively flow from race and/or ethnicity, diversifying the applicant pool is one important way that the Department can seek to increase its language capacity and cultural fluency—along with providing pay incentives for any officers with language skills, and enhancing diversity training for all officers. Doing so through
- 53 -

diverse stakeholder organizations serves the additional purpose of strengthening community ties and signaling the Department’s commitment to being inclusive and representative.
VI. TRAINING
The training NOPD has provided to its officers during the last several years is severely deficient in nearly every respect. NOPD’s failure to train compromises officer and public safety, effective crime reduction, and the credibility and reputation of the Department as a whole. Shortcomings at the recruit, field, and in-service stages of training have left NOPD officers illequipped to perform their duties in a safe, constitutional, and effective manner. We found systemic problems in training of every type, including tactical, operational, legal, and ethical. Officers receive an insufficient amount of training—there has been almost no in-service training for the past five years—and the instruction officers do receive is often out-of date, conflicts with NOPD policies or current legal requirements, or fails to address officers’ most pressing training needs.
We found no disagreement that NOPD training is inadequate. NOPD officers of all ranks told us they want more and better training, and strongly expressed this sentiment in their responses to NOPD’s employee survey. In that survey, only 24% of NOPD employees agreed that they have sufficient opportunities for training, and overwhelmingly reported that existing training needs improvement. NOPD leadership likewise has acknowledged that its training systems are in need of extensive repair. NOPD’s Superintendent has prioritized the wholesale remaking of training in his organizational strategy to improve NOPD.
Other sections of this Report address the impact of poor training in the areas of use of force; stops, searches, and arrests; investigating misconduct; supervision; community policing; and racial, ethnic, and gender bias in policing. Our investigation found direct links between inadequate training and serious, systemic problems in each of these areas. This section addresses our findings regarding NOPD’s overall systems for developing and delivering training, including priorities and goals; curricula and lesson plan development; selection of training staff; facilities; and records management.
A. Deficiencies in Developing and Delivering Training
1. Inadequate Development of Priorities and Goals
NOPD lacks a strategic training plan that sets out the Department’s training goals, establishes its training priorities, and reflects the Department’s values. Such training plans are essential to ensuring that a police department directs its resources to meeting its officers’ greatest training needs, and provides officers and recruits with consistent messages regarding its mission and values. The Department has not only failed to develop and implement a plan, but its leadership provided only minimal, sporadic executive input into the Training Division’s activities. This lack of focus and planning has had clear consequences; indeed, only 23% of respondents to NOPD’s employee survey reported that NOPD provides the “right kind” of training to District officers. Even fewer, 14%, believed that NOPD provides the “right kind” of training to detectives/investigators.
- 54 -

While NOPD has a centralized, staffed Training Division, the Division does not serve as an effective central management or coordination point for NOPD’s training efforts. The Department’s limited in-service training occurs on an ad-hoc basis. Specialized units in particular often formulate and carry out their own training. Much of the training offered at the District level is not communicated back to NOPD’s Training Division. Further, the Department does not properly develop or review training curricula, evaluate instructor qualifications and abilities, or keep centralized training statistics. This near-total absence of coordination and planning results in poor quality control, inefficient training practices, and grossly inadequate documentation and record-keeping.
As the Department seeks to address the lack of coordinated strategy and planning in training, it should establish an executive training task force to advise the Superintendent and identify global training priorities and broad training goals. The Department should also take full advantage of the resources available outside of the Department, including the many colleges and universities in and around New Orleans. A public safety training consortium, comprised of the presidents/chancellors of local universities/colleges, as well as representatives from the public and private secondary school system, and the Louisiana POST, could provide NOPD with expertise in creating training strategy, course topics, curriculum development, classroom/facility use, instructor development, and training delivery.
2. Weaknesses in Curricula, Lesson Plans and Presentation
Once a department establishes training goals and priorities, it must develop appropriate curricula and lesson plans, to ensure that officers receive instruction that is consistent with departmental policy and values, constitutional policing practices, and current law. NOPD has no formal curriculum development process. As a consequence, we found that NOPD training materials are not integrated with each other or NOPD policy; use or reference outdated materials; contain contradictory definitions; are poorly and inconsistently formatted; and do not reflect community involvement in their development.
As noted in section I of this Report, NOPD’s use of force materials are particularly poorly integrated. They do not convey a complete or consistent message regarding how NOPD officers should use force. The use of force curriculum, for example, refers to a federal use of force curriculum that is no longer in use, and contains contradictory definitions. Similarly, NOPD’s exclusionary rule training materials date back more than two years and reference material from more than a decade ago. The curriculum does not address the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 554 U.S. 941; 129 S. Ct. 24 (2009), and its important implications for how officers should conduct warrantless searches and seizures.
We further found that NOPD devotes an insufficient amount of time for instruction of some of the most critical and complex subjects in policing. The materials we reviewed reflect only eight hours of Academy training on the topic of use of force, which is wholly insufficient. Similarly, the Department provides recruits with two hours of training on the exclusionary rule, a critical piece of a police officer’s training regimen. The amount of time devoted to weapons recertification is also grossly inadequate; NOPD reports that officers spend only 30 minutes on
- 55 -

firearms requalification for the entire calendar year. The Department should be providing two eight-hour mandatory training sessions (16 hours per year), and incorporating a firearms/use of force requalification curriculum.
We also found that NOPD’s over reliance on classroom lectures in delivering its training undermines the effectiveness of the instruction the Department does provide. The Department should be incorporating a variety of teaching strategies into its lesson plans, including scenariobased role play, video, case-study, local-example methods, and field trips. We noted that the Police and the Community curriculum did incorporate video, and the Diversity in the Community curriculum included viewing the movie Crash, but saw few other examples of teaching modes other than lecture. As with the development of training curricula, the Department should incorporate community involvement in the delivery of training to give officers a better understanding of community perspectives, and help build police-community partnerships.
One area in which a variety of teaching methods can be particularly helpful is in report writing. NOPD should use actual reports (redacted if necessary) as examples of both high quality and also low quality reports. Training should include a discussion of the impact that police reports have on the criminal justice system, including the repercussions of poor reports and the benefits of high-quality reports. Experts and guest speakers such as judges, prosecutors, and even crime victims can serve to complement a basic report writing lecture. Finally, as it relates to all reports, NOPD should offer various levels of writing, spelling, and grammar classes, with an emphasis on legal writing.
B. Deficiencies in Staffing, Facilities, and Recordkeeping
1. Failure to Develop Criteria for Instructor Selection and Review
A highly qualified training staff is critical to ensure that training is developed and delivered effectively. NOPD’s training staff is comprised of twenty-one members—thirteen based at the Training Academy and eight at the firing range. In addition, adjunct instructors (temporary instructors from units within the Department, but not assigned to the Training Division) also provide training. Adjunct instructors are normally on loan to the Training Division for a short period to teach designated topics.
The Training Division staff appeared motivated and dedicated, and has attempted to fill gaps and compensate for the lack of upper-level command leadership and training strategy. However, the lack of established criteria for instructor selection, alongside a failure to provide regular reviews of Training Division personnel or adjunct instructors, means that the Department is not formally considering the quality of instructors’ basic qualifications, past performance, their adherence to Department values, or their complaint or disciplinary history in deciding who will train NOPD officers. The Department should have set criteria for selecting qualified staff, including certain select-in criteria (i.e. college or special certifications), as well as disqualification criteria such as sustained excessive force, misconduct, or behavior violations. NOPD will also need to require annual reviews of all staff assigned to the Training Division to ensure they meet delineated criteria, as well as tailored annual training, including training on effective teaching and adult-learning techniques, as well as curriculum development.
- 56 -

2. Inadequate Training Facilities
Although the Training Division recently moved into a new building that offers a clean, comfortable, and professional environment, the facility currently does not have the capacity to allow large groups to conduct physical skills training in defensive tactics and ground fighting techniques. We observed some undeveloped space at the Training Academy that the Department could potentially convert into a space for such training, as well as some usable space in the lower level of the Third Police District building.
The Department has also suffered from the lack of a well-functioning firing range, since its own facility was damaged in Hurricane Katrina. The Department has yet to repair the facility, and instead requires officers to use ranges operated by two other law enforcement agencies in order to recertify annually. The arrangement creates serious logistical challenges for officers, and leaves them without adequate space, time, and facilities to qualify with weapons and learn other less-lethal tactics. NOPD should provide officers access to a safe and modern firing range to ensure that their sworn members receive appropriate firearms training.
The current NOPD firing range facility is in disrepair and we were told the facility is located in a flood plain. We were told also that there is a U.S. Coast Guard Facility, a NASA facility, and a refurbished New Orleans Fire Department facility adjacent to the police firearms range site and that the site has an excellent secure driving training area. NOPD and the broader New Orleans community should consider whether to renovate this firing range facility for shortterm use until a longer-term solution is realized.
3. Lack of Effective Record Management
The Department lacks an effective record management system to monitor and track all training activity; a critical function to ensure that officers receive training and complete mandatory training requirements. During our investigation, we learned that previously maintained records were destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, and the Department has since failed to re-establish a training record management system. Training staff, NOPD leadership, and rank-and-file officers all expressed concern and dissatisfaction with the current system, which has left the Department unable to accurately determine what training classes have been offered to NOPD officers and which officers completed mandatory or voluntary training classes.
Recently, NOPD’s Training Division has made efforts to track training manually, creating a centralized hard-copy training file with folders for all sworn members of the Department. These records are stored in an upstairs file room and are maintained by a lone sergeant. Our review of these training files revealed that they contained very little documentation and the information was not recorded in a consistent format. More typically, with the exception of TASER certification records, records are maintained throughout the Department with little coordination to ensure that records are forwarded to the Training Division or any other centralized location. Consequently, we found instances where officers had not yet completed
- 57 -

mandatory training, the Department was apparently unaware of the lapse, and the officers were neither scheduled for training nor reprimanded for failing to complete the mandatory training.
C. Inadequate Recruit, Field, and In-Service Training
1. Problems in Recruit (Academy) Training
During our investigation, we did not have the opportunity to closely review recruit training. The recruit class had recently graduated and it was the last one scheduled for the year. However, the concerns we have expressed regarding NOPD’s training apply fully to new recruits. In addition, we found that the unfocused recruit selection process discussed in section IV of this Report has an impact on academy training. The Department hired candidates as they became available and immediately placed them into the existing academy class, creating varied training levels within the class, and leading to considerable confusion and inefficiency. NOPD found itself with a class size of nearly 75 recruits, which was too large to be manageable, given the resources available and the structure of the training. Recruit class sizes should be kept to approximately 25-30 candidates.
Recruit selection problems also result in a high attrition rate at NOPD’s academy. During just one week of NOPD’s most recent Academy, five recruits were released after “behavioral red flags” were raised. It is appropriate to release recruits from the Academy when it becomes apparent that they are not suitable to be police officers. It is of course preferable not to admit unsuitable recruits in the first place.
We also found that, as in other areas of training, there did not appear to be a curriculum developed for each of the delineated topics. Also as in other areas of training, an overwhelming majority of officers, nearly 80%, according to NOPD’s employee survey, said that they believe training for recruits needs to be improved.
2. Deficiencies in Field Training Program
Field training is an integral component of an effective training program, transitioning recruits from classroom theory to field practice. NOPD’s process for selecting Field Training Officers (“FTOs”) raises significant concerns. District Commanders have chosen the Department’s more than 70 FTOs without any established criteria, reportedly leading to selection of some FTOs who are unqualified and unsuitable to supervise and train recruits. Most troubling, we learned of situations where District commanders were aware that FTOs were unqualified to supervise or train, yet failed to remove those FTOs from their positions. This lapse constitutes an egregious disservice to new recruits and risks liability to the Department, injury to officers and civilians, and damage to relationships in the community. We were told that unqualified FTOs typically were not removed because recruit assignments for Districts are predicated on the number of FTOs in each district. Thus, District Commanders have an incentive to keep as many FTOs as possible to ensure that new recruits are assigned to their districts. This dynamic underscores the need for established, centralized criteria for the FTO selection process.
- 58 -

We are also concerned that there does not appear to be any process for the Training Division or Field Training Coordinator to actively elicit feedback from recruits regarding their perspective on the quality of their field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy. This can be a valuable way to learn what is working and what is not, as well as which FTOs may need additional instruction.
The failure to develop an adequate process for selecting, retaining, and removing FTOs, in combination with the generally poor state of training at NOPD, likely explains why officers throughout NOPD hold a poor opinion of the FTO program. NOPD’s Employee Survey identified FTO training as a major weakness in NOPD, with over 80% of surveyed employees agreeing that training for FTOs needs to be improved. Officers described the FTO program as “defunct,” telling us that officers without sufficient experience or competence are selected, and suggesting that FTOs receive more instruction before they are asked to train recruits.
Rehabilitating the program, and its reputation within NOPD, will require that the Department establish clear eligibility criteria for FTOs; develop and implement a FTO training curriculum that incorporates training on learning styles, generational differences, and adult instruction; and implement a mechanism to review FTOs, and remove them where appropriate.
NOPD has a good foundation upon which to build a credible and effective FTO program. The Department’s program is based on the San Jose Field Training Model and involves seventeen weeks of intensive on-the-job training, including daily observations of recruits and biweekly reporting of recruit progress. This constant evaluation helps determine recruits’ readiness for patrol duty. Training officers and sergeants are responsible for mentoring and advising recruits, as well as formally monitoring their progress. The structure of NOPD’s FTO program is also good. FTOs receive tailored instruction, and are regularly updated on new items by the Training Division. There is a central FTO manager based at the Training Division, and each district designates a field training sergeant coordinator. The Training Division field training manager meets monthly with district-based field training sergeants to discuss the progress and training of each individual new officer in the program. This allows for early identification of problems and allows for timely adjustments so the new officer can be successful.
3. Failure to Provide In-Service Training
NOPD’s failure to provide a formal and mandatory in-service training program is a critical lapse. For many years, the Department has required only firearms re-qualification and driving training. Officers throughout the Department reported that they have not received inservice training since Hurricane Katrina, and overwhelmingly told us they needed and desired more training. While some in-service training does take place, attendee selection appears random, attendance is not documented, and training curricula are not preserved. There is no strategic planning to determine in-service training priorities, attendee selection, or delivery of training. Most importantly, there appears to be no accountability for failing to attend required training.
In-service training is the most effective way to prevent poor police tactics, incorporate best police practices, provide necessary training updates and refresh perishable skills. NOPD
- 59 -

leadership has committed to improving in-service training and the Superintendent has asked the Training Division to develop a 40-hour annual in-service training program. Critical in-service topics include: use of force, firearms, defensive tactics, integrity and ethics, community policing, communication skills (de-escalation training), cultural competency, search and seizure, policies and procedures, and current legal developments.
Recently, NOPD has offered valuable courses, including leadership and community relations, and has also stepped up its efforts to provide less-lethal force training to officers. There is still, however: no plan that sets in-service training goals or prioritizes training needs; no system for developing good in-service training curricula and lesson plans; and no system for tracking what has been offered and whether officers attended as required. These steps are critical as the Department moves forward with its plan to implement a mandatory in-service training program.
In concert with annual in-service training, NOPD will need to develop and implement a supervisory training program that specifically focuses on supervisory and managerial roles, with a specific emphasis on risk management. NOPD has not provided such training, at least in recent years. All newly-promoted officers should complete mandatory supervisory training prior to assuming a supervisory position. NOPD should also provide tailored training for all specialized units. The Department should consider that, as it develops and implements new policies, many of these policies will require structured, formal, in-service training.
In addition to structured in-service training, NOPD should provide meaningful daily roll call training, and consider incorporating distance-learning into its training delivery methods. Daily roll call training allows for continuing, effective daily instruction on less complex departmental policies and procedures, review of laws, and officer safety. These sessions are short in duration and intended to supplement other departmental training and allow for officer discussion. Daily roll call sessions typically occur at the beginning of each shift and are an essential part of a strategic training program. Daily roll call training at NOPD is not being used to its potential and may be another source of inconsistent communication of NOPD policies, procedures, and practices. While NOPD has what it calls “roll call” training, we found that the Training Division is not involved with developing topics, evaluating instructors, or even reviewing lesson plans. While we did observe one roll call training during a line up, an officer approached us immediately afterwards to tell us that what we observed was staged for our benefit and did not fairly represent NOPD’s normal roll calls, in which officers regularly arrive late and little of substance is covered.
VII. FIELD SUPERVISION
Field supervisors, who at NOPD are sergeants, supervise NOPD field officers who work in the streets and neighborhoods of New Orleans. These field officers may be in a “platoon,” assigned to patrol and respond to calls, or they may work in District-level task forces or narcotics units, usually assigned to non-patrol duties, but occasionally patrolling and responding to calls to supplement patrol operations. While their assignments vary, field officers have daily interactions with the public. These interactions provide the opportunity to solve problems and build
- 60 -

community relationships, or to create or exacerbate divisions, making it more difficult for NOPD to police effectively.
Field sergeants, with critical support from their Lieutenants, provide the close and consistent supervision necessary to guide officers’ conduct and to help them learn from their mistakes. Field sergeants should be in the best position to recognize a problem with an officer’s conduct and intervene immediately to ameliorate or prevent harm. When a supervisor is onscene and realizes that a patrol officer has made an arrest without probable cause, the supervisor can instruct the officer to release the arrestee and immediately counsel the officer about what the officer did wrong. When a community member is upset about how an officer responded to a call, a supervisor can immediately take a complaint—or intervene to prevent a complaint. How a field sergeant conducts him or herself, and whether he/she requires adherence to policy and ethics, sets a tone of accountability and integrity—or not. Field sergeants also are in the best position to ensure that street level crime prevention efforts are as effective as possible. Field supervisors know how productive their officers are, what they need to be more effective, and should be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each officer under their command, adjusting their level and type of supervision accordingly.
During our investigation, we encountered many excellent field sergeants and lieutenants. However, we found a number of systemic obstacles to effective field supervision and found that these obstacles are in fact preventing NOPD from providing officers the supervision necessary for accountability and effectiveness.
As in other areas of NOPD practice, with respect to field supervision there is a disconnect between policy and actual practice. In some instances, the policies are poor. But more often, supervisors simply do not follow policy and NOPD does not take steps to hold supervisors accountable for failing to adhere to policies or provide necessary supervision and guidance.
A. Deficient Field Supervision Policies
By policy, NOPD allows for too few assigned supervisors. The number of officers a sergeant supervises—the sergeant’s “span of control”—is a critical factor affecting the adequacy of supervision. At NOPD, a patrol supervisor may be responsible for directly supervising up to twenty officers. See Ops. Man. Ch. 11.0.1, Authority & Responsibility-Unity of Command. NOPD’s Bureau Commander for Operations told us that each platoon “should” have one lieutenant, three sergeants, twenty officers and six detectives. However, as per policy, there is only a requirement that two “supervisors” work at a time on the weekend. See Ops. Bureau Policy #2. We have been told also that there are currently an insufficient number of platoon sergeants to staff each platoon with three sergeants, even on paper. The sergeant/officer ratio for District Task Forces is, by policy, 1:12. See Ops. Bureau Policy #2. The span of control for District narcotics units is 1:6 by policy, and, we were told by the Bureau Commander, the actual span of control for these units can be 1:10.
The 1:20 span of control allowed by NOPD policy for patrol units is too large to permit adequate supervision. We observed assigned spans of control at this ratio, generally where an assigned sergeant was off duty and another sergeant was handling two squads/platoons, although
- 61 -

we also routinely saw far smaller spans of control, including 2:8 or 2:11. It is generally accepted practice that spans of control for patrol units should be no more than 1:10, and 1:5 is recommended. Any span of control should take into account the level of activity and type of assignment of the unit being supervised. As discussed below, given the considerable supervision challenges NOPD faces, a span of control at the lower end of this spectrum for all field units is necessary to ensure adequate supervision.
In some other respects, field supervision policies are sufficient as written. Supervisors are clearly required by NOPD policy to review, correct, and approve each arrest report, affirming that the report “is sufficient in form and content.” See Ops. Man. Ch. 82.1, Incident Report/Field Report Writing Manual at p. 20. Similarly, another directive requires that the supervisor of the arresting officer, “review, correct, and approve” the arrest report, before forwarding. See Ops. Man. Ch. 42.15, District Attorney Screening and Arrest Case Management. Another policy requires that all District officers, including platoon (patrol), task force, narcotics officers, K-9, Mounted, Traffic, SOD personnel, and any other NOPD personnel working patrol, complete a Daily Activity Report. See Ops. Bureau Policy #19. Platoon and Task force supervisors are required to review and approve each Daily Activity Report completed by their subordinates, and to complete their own “Supervisors Daily Activity Report.” According to this policy, supervisors “shall be responsible and accountable for counseling officers/supervisors whose Daily Activity Reports are disapproved.” Where a Daily Activity Report is disapproved more than three times in a quarter the supervisor is required to discipline the officer, and document that discipline in a DI-2. If there are subsequent violations, the supervisor is required by policy to initiate a formal investigation of the officer.
NOPD policy requires sergeants to be in the field directly supervising patrol officers. Operations Bureau Policy #18 provides that, except at the beginning or end of a shift, only one platoon sergeant may stay in the station. All other platoon sergeants “shall remain on the street directing resources, supervising personnel, managing backlogs, responding to scenes, signing affidavits, etc.” This policy further requires that at least one platoon sergeant respond to the scene of every UCR Part I crime in their district to “ensure the appropriate police action/response.” Sergeants are also required by this policy to ensure that certain types of calls are responded to immediately, by a sergeant if no one else is available; that sergeants monitor calls for service backlogs and response times; and that sergeants “ensure that there are sufficient personnel on the street at all times.” Platoon sergeants are further required by this policy to ensure that officers are logged into the Department’s AVL system (which tracks squad car location) and in-car camera system, and ensure that their systems are functioning properly.
These policies comport with the standard practice of field supervisors reviewing, correcting, and approving the arrest reports of their subordinate officers, and confirming through documentation and observation that officers are actually active and productive in the field. However, other NOPD policies appear to place these responsibilities on only one sergeant in each District per shift, regardless of the number of officers working the shift, or whether the incident involves an officer under the direct command of that sergeant. Operations Bureau Policy #5, for example, requires platoon commanders (usually lieutenants) to delegate to each platoon sergeant specific job assignments and responsibilities. The policy requires that only a
- 62 -

single sergeant review, track, and approve all reports and activity sheets for the entire platoon.19 Depending upon the number of officers working and the activity in the District, it may not be possible for a sergeant to adequately review all arrest reports and activity sheets for accuracy and completeness, much less to do so in conjunction with the other activities patrol sergeants must undertake, such as responding to the scenes of certain arrests or uses of force, and handling misconduct complaints. Moreover, if a sergeant is reviewing, correcting, and approving arrest reports written by officers who officially report to another sergeant, this can undermine unity of command and make it more difficult to effectively supervise, counsel, and assist officers.
B. Deficient Field Supervision in Practice
1. Failures in First-line Supervision
Through our interviews, document review, ride-alongs, and other first-hand observations, we found that NOPD fails to provide the supervision that is necessary for accountability and effectiveness, and required by the Department’s policy. We saw a pattern of arrest and use of force reports that had been approved by a supervisor even though they contained obvious flaws—a problem we discuss in more detail in other sections of this Report. We found that arrest reports sometimes appear to have not been reviewed at all, and use of force reports sometimes appeared to have been written by the involved officers, rather than by the supervisor as required by policy. Some reports were signed days after the incident, or not signed at all. As discussed in the Use of Force section of this Report, it is clear that supervisors do not always respond to the scene of a use of force incident, or conduct investigations of uses of force as required by policy. We saw little indication that Daily Activity Reports are being accurately and consistently filled out, or that counseling and corrective action occur when they are not. There is evidence that some supervisors do not even ensure that officers stay on-duty: local officials told us that officers have argued in litigation that it is consistent with Department “customs and practices,” to leave early on a slow day while remaining on the clock, even though this clearly violates Department rules.
On ride-alongs, it was often our experience that only a single platoon sergeant was providing field supervision for an entire District. During one ride-along in the Eighth District, for example, the sergeant with whom we rode was the only supervisor in the field and was responsible for supervising the entire uniform patrol, as well as specialized units and a special task force assigned to Canal Street. Sometimes this situation was the result of having two sergeants on duty, with one sergeant remaining at the District station; in other instances, there appeared to be more sergeants staying at the station than supervising in the field. Exacerbating this lack of field supervision, sergeants in the field often responded to calls as if the sergeant were simply another officer in the platoon, rather than first determining whether an officer was available to take the call so that the sergeant could remain free to perform supervisory duties.
19 Sergeants are assigned other platoon-wide tasks as well. One platoon sergeant is assigned the task of handling platoon scheduling and lineups, including reviewing and tracking attendance, sick leave and furloughs. One platoon sergeant is assigned the task of handling filing, correspondence and paperwork, and one, roll-call training. Ops. Bureau Policy #5. Many of these tasks are completed by civilian employees or non-supervisory officers in other Departments.
- 63 -

2. Reliance on Integrity Control Officers
In many respects, NOPD relies on ICOs to conduct direct supervision duties. ICOs, for instance, are charged with conducting periodic on-scene observations to “monitor the quality of NOPD services;” checking summons issued by District personnel daily for errors; and talking with citizens about their experiences with NOPD officers. Officers’ direct supervisors should be conducting such tasks in the first instance, and NOPD should not have to rely on ICOs for such duties. A similar example is NOPD’s initiation of an “audit procedure” in which “field supervisors will randomly visit the scenes of calls to NOPD where the original officer recorded the disposition as Necessary Action Taken, Unfounded, or Gone on Arrival.” Such supervisory response to calls, especially calls that are more complicated or prone to problems, should be a routine part of field supervision rather than part of a special “audit.”
While ICOs and similar oversight mechanisms serve important functions, we found that NOPD’s overreliance on these entities to perform functions that should be part of direct supervision leads to a number of problems. First, the surrogate supervision provided by these other mechanisms is too often ad hoc or random, and insufficient in scope or amount. We found that ICOs are the widely acknowledged but unofficial Assistant Commander for each District, as well as the Administrative Lieutenant for the District Commander, creating duties that are sufficient for at least one full time job. Consequently, ICOs spend relatively little time on direct, integrity-related activities that are, by policy, the core function of their assignment. We found that some ICOs rarely leave the station and do not, as required by policy, check off-duty detail locations or attend community meetings. Nor do ICOs conduct the document-based integrity checks as required by policy. Ops. Bureau Policy #8 requires that ICOs review at least two incar camera videos each day and make two random citizen call-backs each day, completing a Daily Citizen Call Form for each. Our review of ICO COMSTAT weekly and year-to-date statistics made clear that ICOs, while reporting hundreds of call-backs and in-car camera video reviews over the year, are not keeping up with this requirement. ICO weekly reports routinely indicated between 2-5 citizen call-backs or in-camera videos reviewed per week, and sometimes these duties did not occur at all during the week. Although required by policy, we found that some Districts did not report their ICO’s integrity related duties for COMSTAT, and we saw no evidence that ICOs’ integrity related work is ever discussed or even referenced during Department-wide COMSTAT meetings.
It is clear that ICOs are not able to complete even the integrity related duties as required by policy. Not surprisingly, we found they are not effectively performing the additional direct supervision duties they have been assigned.
3. Ineffective Alternative Mechanisms for Supervision
Other units assigned direct supervision-type duties are similarly unable to provide sufficient or consistent oversight. For instance, “A-case officers” are assigned to each District and are meant to act as a liaison between the District and the DA’s office to ensure that arrest reports articulate probable cause and thus form a strong basis for prosecution. We found that this assignment had become largely moribund, although the DA’s office reports recent attempts to revive the role of A-case officers. This is a good step but, even if performing as contemplated,
- 64 -

A-case officers cannot substitute for close and consistent supervision of field officers by their direct supervisors. Similarly, the Incident Report Review Section is tasked with monitoring the quality of reports “throughout the Bureaus” to ensure they are accurate; complete; include the correct signal and classification; comply with NOPD policy on Incident Reports; and comply with Louisiana criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidentiary law. This Section is required by policy to return reports that do not meet these standards to the originating officer’s commander and Bureau Superintendent to meet the standards set forth [by policy].” See Ops. Man. Ch. 82.5. Such a unit is commendable if used as a backstop behind first-line supervisors who have already carefully reviewed every arrest report completed by officers under their command. However, our interviews with supervisors and officers, as well as the number of extremely poor arrests reports we reviewed, indicates that supervisors are routinely missing errors and problems with arrest reports. The Incident Report Review Section, while ripe with potential, is in practice of little use, particularly, since it is only staffed by a single officer, a lieutenant. Moreover, any unit set apart from the field, with no realistic opportunity to be onscene and which does not review incidents until days or weeks later cannot provide the benefits of contemporaneous on-site review that field supervisors are meant to provide.
The second problem with NOPD’s de facto reliance on specialized positions or units is that it confuses lines of authority and accountability. In doing so, it may encourage supervisors and officers to view oversight and direction that should be ongoing and routine (such as responding to the scenes of uses of force or particular arrests, and reviewing reports), as something intermittent and random—and someone else’s responsibility. As discussed in other sections of this Report, we found this lack of responsibility and ownership throughout NOPD, and particularly evident in responsibilities related to direct supervision, such as use of force reporting and investigation, complaint intake, and report approval.
Finally, where direct oversight is shifted from officers’ direct supervisors to others, the supervisor does not have the same opportunity to learn about officers’ strengths and weaknesses, and may not always learn immediately of specific errors, depriving the supervisor of the ability to intervene, counsel, and work with their officers to improve their skills and conduct. Primary review and counseling by those more removed from the officer may be less informed, less efficient, and less effective.
We understand that NOPD’s establishment of these various systems to act as accountability mechanisms is almost certainly motivated by a perceived need to provide closer oversight to officers and to identify problems that supervisors were missing. However, these systems currently are used as an alternative to effective direct supervision rather than to supplement it, and are a poor substitute for close, consistent supervision of officers by wellqualified supervisors.
By adopting the changes outlined below, NOPD can facilitate more effective and efficient direct field supervision, and allow these other oversight mechanisms to narrow and focus their efforts to better support NOPD’s integrity, quality control, and accountability efforts.
C. Implementing Effective and Accountable Field Supervision
- 65 -

Many of the recommendations made elsewhere in this letter apply equally to the area of field supervision. Inadequate training, poor recruitment, and the problems in NOPD’s Field Training Officer program result in too many officers in need of inordinate levels of supervision. Problematic performance evaluations and constraints on promotions result in officers being promoted to supervisory positions when they are not ready or are unqualified to supervise. The lack of in-service training, particularly for new supervisors in areas such as use of force reporting and review, complaint intake and investigation, report writing, and stops, searches and seizures, further compromises field supervisors’ ability to effectively supervise. Improvements in these areas will positively impact field supervision of patrol officers. Below, we discuss a number of additional changes to NOPD practice that are necessary to bring about adequate field supervision.
1. Appropriate Span of Control and Staffing Allocation
In the context of current staffing allocations, field sergeants’ span of control which, as noted above, can by policy be as high as one sergeant supervising twenty officers, is too wide to allow for effective supervision. Field supervisors should be able to respond to the scene to review uses of force and to approve certain arrests. They also should be available to handle the initial response to complaints about their subordinates. Supervisors should know their officers and assigned areas well enough to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of their unit. They should be working closely enough with their officers to be able to comprehensively and credibly evaluate their performance.
In addition to specifically allowing for a wide span of control, NOPD policy and practice further encourages an overly broad span of control by requiring one sergeant to review, track, and approve all reports and activity sheets for the entire platoon. See Ops. Bureau Policy #5. While it is not unusual to assign one sergeant the duty of ensuring that all reports are collected at the end of a shift, it is unrealistic to expect one sergeant to conduct meaningful review of all reports and activity sheets for a platoon that may number over twenty officers, even if the sergeant is not assigned any other platoon-wide responsibilities. Even where only eleven officers are covering an entire District during a watch, which, as noted above, did not appear to be uncommon, what would be a manageable span of control of 2:11 is rendered a far more challenging ratio of 1:11, due to NOPD’s approach of keeping one sergeant in the station house.
A smaller span of control on paper is thus meaningless if field supervisors are not actually responsible for fewer officers and given the opportunity to directly supervise them by responding to the scene, reviewing their reports, and providing counseling, redirection, and support where necessary. NOPD should review the current staffing allocation of platoon supervisors and restructure current allocations to permit sergeants to spend more time directly supervising officers. At the same time it deploys more sergeants to the field, NOPD should ensure that sergeants in the field do not become de facto patrol officers. NOPD should require that, where feasible, sergeants determine the status of each officer and attempt to identify an available officer before responding to a call to perform the duties of an officer.
2. Unity of Command
- 66 -

NOPD policy requires that “all employees of the New Orleans Police Department shall be answerable to only one supervisor at a time.” See Ops. Man. Ch. 41.01.05. This idea of “unity of command,” is meant to ensure that officers have consistent supervision and that supervisors know their subordinates’ strengths and weaknesses, allowing them to better direct and redirect their work. It appears, however, that large spans of control in patrol and the current allocation of sergeants undermine unity of command. Under NOPD’s current approach to supervision, the supervisor to whom a patrol or task force officer reports can change on a daily basis. Officers may be assigned on paper to a particular supervisor to whom they submit leave requests and the like, but supervisors and their subordinates do not consistently work the same days, and supervisors do not necessarily respond to the calls of their own subordinates. There is no true unity of command that facilitates the development of a genuine supervisory relationship between sergeants and their subordinates. With the reported current shortage of platoon sergeants, this dynamic is exacerbated.
In even the best run departments, the absence or unavailability of an officer’s supervisor will at times require that another supervisor respond to the scene, review reports, or take a complaint. However, this should be the exception, not the norm. NOPD should implement a true system of unity of command, in which officers and their supervisors have the same days off and the same schedules, and officers report consistently to one sergeant. Sergeants should respond to the scene of arrests and uses of force by the officers they supervise, and should closely review and approve their reports. This level of consistent interaction will allow field sergeants to develop a genuine supervisory relationship with their officers, allowing them to better learn and respond to each officer’s strengths and weaknesses, and provide the appropriate level of direction and correction.
3. Systems to Support Field Supervision
As discussed above, NOPD has in place a number of units and individuals that, properly used, can serve as a significant source of support to field supervisors. There are a number of additional systems that NOPD can implement that will facilitate supervision that is more efficient, effective, and accountable.
a) Chain-of-Command Accountability
Our investigation showed a lack of accountability throughout the chain of command for ensuring that field supervisors properly supervise officers. As discussed throughout this Report, supervisors too frequently approve arrest reports that do not articulate probable cause and use of force reports that are grossly deficient; ignore obvious misconduct in conducting internal investigations; and approve timesheets that are inaccurate. Many, if not most, of these documents require review or approval up the chain of command. There seemed to be no notice taken, much less discipline imposed, for NOPD supervisors who approve egregious force without question; conduct obviously flawed investigations; approve clearly deficient arrest reports; or who simply do not adequately supervise officers. Even where officers are disciplined for misconduct, there is no consistent effort to determine whether supervisors played a role in condoning or turning a blind eye to the officer’s conduct, or to hold supervisors accountable where they knew or should have known of the officer’s misconduct.
- 67 -

NOPD should provide field supervisors the tools and training to effectively supervise and should consistently hold them accountable where they fail to provide appropriate supervision. This is true also for NOPD commanders. NOPD must hold accountable lieutenants, captains, and above for reviewing and correcting incomplete or inaccurate work by sergeants, and for ensuring that supervisors supervise.
b) Early Warning System
As discussed in the Use of Force section of this Report, NOPD’s early warning system, called PPEP, currently exists in name only, providing no real support or assistance to NOPD managers and supervisors. NOPD is currently working with New Orleans’ Independent Police Monitor to develop and implement a new early warning system. If properly developed, implemented, and maintained, an early warning system can be an effective way of tracking uses of force and misconduct complaints, among other data. This tracking can assist departments in identifying those officers, supervisors, and units with uses of force or complaints that are unexpectedly high, even after taking into account the nature of the particular assignment. In addition, an early warning system can identify other warning signs, such as excessive sick leave or a sudden decline in performance. Early warning systems can also allow an agency to track trends based not only on individual officers, but also on individual supervisors and commanders.
Once an apparent problem is identified, the department can more closely analyze available data to determine whether there is in fact a problem, and implement appropriate interventions to address it. Interventions might include, for example: requiring additional or remedial training in de-escalation techniques; referral to an officer assistance and support program; transferring an officer to a more suitable assignment; breaking up a problematic unit; or providing training to a sergeant on how to better respond to complaints about her subordinates. By implementing non-disciplinary interventions—and monitoring or revising the intervention to ensure the problem is resolved—departments can prevent more serious misconduct, improve officer safety, avoid substantial liability, improve or repair police-community relationships, and sometimes save an officer’s career.
Supervisors can be an invaluable part of providing an early warning about problematic officers, and early warning systems can be an invaluable part of effective supervision. In order for this to be so, early warning systems should be developed and implemented to provide supervisors access to information about their subordinates, as well as the ability to enter into the system their own supervisory observations. With a well-run and accessible early warning system, supervisors do not have to search for documents or rely on second-hand information and hallway conversations to gain complete and real-time information about the officers under their supervision. In order to ensure that early warning systems are accepted and effective, a department must ensure that they are user-friendly and useful to supervisors. This requires consideration of supervisory use at the development and policy stages, as well as training for supervisors on the system once it is implemented.
As it develops NOPD’s new early warning system, NOPD should ensure that it can be used as a supervisory tool. NOPD also should provide the policy, training, and administrative
- 68 -

support to ensure that the early warning system is maintained and the information included in it is accurate and timely, and that supervisors know how to use it.
c) COMSTAT
COMSTAT, if modified as recommended in other sections of this Report to include regular consideration and analysis of integrity-related data and the quality of arrests by NOPD officers, will become a more useful tool for supervisors. NOPD should modify COMSTAT in this way and train supervisors how to use this information to provide more effective supervision and direction to their officers.
d) Recording Devices
NOPD should also ensure that the technology it has implemented is maintained and actually used so that supervisors can better monitor and respond to their officers’ actions. NOPD currently has ECD cameras, AVL, and in-car camera capabilities, but these technologies are reportedly underused and, particularly with in-car cameras, often in disrepair. By NOPD policy and generally accepted practice, it is a supervisor’s responsibility to report equipment problems, seek to have the equipment repaired, and ensure that officers are properly caring for and using the equipment they are assigned. It is also a supervisor’s responsibility to use the valuable information captured by these types of technology to determine the accuracy of reports and assist supervisory inspections of the unit.
Recordings of officer-civilian interactions nearly always exonerate an officer, and in any event they allow a department and a community a better opportunity to learn what really happened during controversial incidents. In the use of force and misconduct investigations we reviewed, there was rarely any indication that supervisors or investigators sought or reviewed audio or video recordings of incidents. NOPD should ensure that review of such information is a routine part of supervision.
NOPD also should consider providing officers with lapel cameras to document interactions, and providing supervisors with handheld audio recorders to permit supervisors to contemporaneously record interactions with community members and complainant statements.
VIII. PAID DETAILS
There are few aspects of NOPD more broadly troubling than its Paid Detail system. Between August 2009 and July 2010, 69% of all officers, almost 1000 in all, submitted a request to work at least one Detail. This number includes 85% of all Lieutenants and 78% of all Captains. Virtually every NOPD officer either works a Detail, wants to work a Detail, or at some point will have to rely on an officer who works a Detail. The effects of Details thus permeate the entire Department. It is widely acknowledged that NOPD’s Detail system has a corrupting effect on the Department. Our interviews with NOPD officers, meetings with other New Orleans-based law enforcement agencies, criminal justice system stakeholders, and the public, revealed that NOPD’s Detail system was a significant contributing factor to both the perception and reality of NOPD as a dysfunctional organization.
- 69 -

The Detail system is essentially a form of overtime work for officers. When on Detail, however, officers are paid and largely controlled by entities other than NOPD. Many police departments allow officers to work outside law-enforcement jobs, but few if any large police departments have a system of Details as entrenched and unregulated as in NOPD. Most well functioning departments have far more checks in place to ensure that outside employment does not undermine the police mission or officer accountability. NOPD’s Detail system is a vestige of the days when starting pay for NOPD officers was among the lowest in the nation. Details were created as a way to give officers maximum flexibility to find work to supplement their incomes. But as NOPD starting salaries became commensurate with similar jurisdictions in the region (though salaries linked to promotions and years-on continue to lag), the Detail system remained largely unchanged.
In the last few months, the Superintendent has begun to implement measures meant to correct and prevent some of the negative impact of the Detail system. In August 2010, the Superintendant banned cash payments. See Gen. Order #828. But, pursuant to this same policy, officers are still expected to negotiate their compensation with the Detail employer. In December 2010, the Superintendent initiated a program to try to centralize Detail information by setting up a single telephone number for all officers to call to report working a Detail, and a webbased application for officers to enter additional Detail information. See Gen. Order #848. While these are undoubtedly improvements, it is too early to assess their effectiveness and, regardless, they are a small part of the wholesale remaking of the Detail system that is necessary.
A. The Impact of the Detail System as Currently Structured
NOPD’s Detail policy is set out in the NOPD Ops. Man. Ch. 22.8, Paid Details and defines a Detail as “off-duty employment, for compensation (anything of value, however slight, (tangible or intangible)) . . . by another individual, business, establishment, or organization where the employee is performing the duties of a police officer or a function of the police department.” The policy provides further that “[e]mployees working paid Details do so as representatives of the New Orleans Police Department.” Officers working Details are “governed by all Department rules, orders and procedures.” Despite these mandates, NOPD’s Detail system, as currently structured: 1) drastically undermines the quality of NOPD policing; 2) facilitates abuse and corruption by NOPD officers; 3) contributes to compromising officer fatigue; 4) contributes to inequitable policing by NOPD; and 5) acts as a financial drain on NOPD rather than a source of revenue.
1. Negative Impact on Quality of NOPD Policing
The Detail system contributes to the poor policing that we observed. There is evidence that some officers are more committed to their Details than their work for NOPD. We heard accounts of “ghosting,” where an officer shows up for roll call and then reports to his or her Detail, rather than his assignment for NOPD. Law enforcement officers from outside agencies told us about NOPD officers leaving in the middle of investigations so as not to be late for their Details. In the records of an October 2009 appeal of a disciplinary decision, it was shown that, for over two years, an officer worked his Detail thirty-eight times on the same days that he took
- 70 -

sick leave before it came to the attention of NOPD officials via an anonymous tip. In some cases, officers are paid by the City and are on a Detail for the same hours. PIB, for example, found that two detectives worked Details that overlapped with their assigned shifts. One of the detectives worked overlapping shifts for an eight month period, including eight times in two months. The other worked four overlapping shifts.
Details can also decrease the quality of policing by leading to divided loyalties and attendant under-policing. Even where officers working Details show up for their regular shifts, we found evidence that some officers are predominately concerned about their Details, with little regard for making good arrests or their other policing responsibilities. For example, an officer may ignore potential criminal incidents that could have an adverse effect on the officer’s Detail if addressing the apparent criminal violation would jeopardize the Detail (and income), or if there is a personal relationship with the business because of a friendship or a longstanding working relationship. It is widely acknowledged in the policing field that some businesses hire officers on Detail with the expectation that officers will “look the other way” when faced with a conflict between enforcing the law and protecting the business’s interest. We reviewed one case, for example, in which an officer learned that a warrant had been issued for his Detail employer’s arrest, and the officer called to notify the employer about the warrant and did not arrest him or send others to arrest him. While the employer subsequently turned himself in, this can be seen as either preferential treatment for the Detail employer or a dereliction of duty by the officer but, regardless, is not the manner in which warrants should be handled.
The amount of money that officers can earn working Details increases the incentive for officers to emphasize their Details over their regular police duties. We have, for example, heard of officers receiving as much as $300 to $500 a night to serve as private security guards for professional athletes. We also heard of two motorcycle officers who insisted on $100 cash each for a one way escort from a New Orleans church to a New Orleans French Quarter hotel. When officers can earn more money on their Details than they do as officers, they may feel a greater allegiance to their Detail employer than they do to the public they are sworn to protect, and they may look the other way rather than report criminal wrongdoing by their Detail employer.
NOPD’s Detail system further undermines good policing by undermining the chain of command. Although Chapter 22.8 bars lower ranked officers from supervising higher ranked officers, there is nothing to bar lower ranked officers from coordinating Details for higher ranked officers. The Detail coordinators possess an inordinate amount of power. The coordinator decides who works when, where, and for how much. Some Detail coordinators officially receive extra pay from the businesses, while others are said to just “take a little off the top.” We were told that some coordinating officers get paid an extra five hours a week or receive as much as $200 per week just to coordinate Details. Having lower ranked officers acting as coordinators puts supervisory officers who want to make extra income in a situation where they answer to a lower ranked officer. This naturally affects the ability or willingness of the supervisor to question the performance of, or to discipline, an officer who is responsible for the supervisor’s additional income. This also leads to the appearance of, if not the reality of, favoritism.
It is also likely that the coordinating officer is coordinating the Details during regular work hours. In order for a Detail coordinator to determine who will work, when officers will
- 71 -

work, and how last minute absences will be staffed, that coordinator needs to be in regular contact with the officers and the business entity. It is highly unlikely that all of this work is done on non-NOPD time.
2. Role of Details in Facilitating Abuse and Corruption
With poor documentation, no restrictions on officers soliciting work, and officers being allowed to negotiate their own compensation, it is easy for officers to extort businesses or individuals. We heard, for example, of many instances in which officers insisted on exorbitant sums of money, often in cash, for motor escorts. We learned of one instance in which officers told a business owner that if the business owner did not hire certain officers at a particular rate, the business would not receive any police protection from NOPD. The business owner reportedly was told, “You f*** with me and you will never see a police car again.” When the business owner tried to speak to a supervisory officer about the issue, the supervisory officer told the business owner that there was nothing the supervisory officer would or could do about the threat. Because of the perceived need for the additional security, the business owner relented and hired the officers he was told to hire at the rates demanded.
We heard of officers receiving free or subsidized housing for doing nothing other than living, and possibly parking their police car, in a particular neighborhood. While subsidizing officer housing can be a progressive measure to enable and encourage officers to live in the cities and neighborhoods they police, such a program constitutes compensation and requires oversight to ensure it is administered fairly and effectively. We were told that some officers who were provided free or subsidized housing would not leave their residences when notified of an incident occurring right outside their doors.
Complaints about officers working Details might also be compromised. In some larger Details, such as the security for events at the Superdome, misconduct complaints are given to the Detail coordinator, and neither the Superdome nor the officer’s regular supervisor has any way of knowing how or if the coordinator deals with these complaints.
3. Increased Risk of Dangerous Officer Fatigue
Because NOPD Detail policy allows officers to work as many as 28 additional hours per week and has little oversight to ensure officers adhere to even this generous cap, it facilitates a system in which officers are so fatigued that it compromises their own safety, impacts their long term well being, and impacts the quality of their work. Until recently, NOPD had virtually no way to know if officers were keeping to the maximum allowable number of hours. NOPD’s new web-based application allows NOPD to better track officers’ Detail hours, but the Department has not put in place a system of accountability to ensure that officers do not work more than 28 hours, or that their Detail work does not compromise their work for NOPD. In speaking with Judges and other members of the criminal justice system, we heard complaints that officers were often too tired to perform their duties on the street and in the courtroom. There is nothing in the rules to prevent an officer from working an overnight Detail and then going directly to his/her NOPD job in the morning. Being sleep-deprived, especially chronically so, can contribute to an officer making dangerous tactical errors; missing potential evidence; taking investigatory short
- 72 -

cuts; writing incomplete reports; providing inaccurate testimony; and acting unprofessionally toward residents.
4. Role of Details in Contributing to Inequitable Policing
NOPD’s Detail system contributes to the inequitable policing we observed in New Orleans. NOPD leadership should know how to best deploy its officer resources, but the Detail system as it is currently operating undermines that judgment. The breadth and prevalence of the Detail system has essentially privatized officer overtime at NOPD, resulting in officers working Details in the areas of town with the least crime, while an insufficient number of officers are working in the areas of New Orleans with the greatest crime prevention needs. Those with means in New Orleans are essentially able to buy additional protection, while those without such means are unable to pay for the services and extra protection needed to make up for insufficient or ineffective policing. When NOPD is able to do its job effectively, no community should feel that it has to pay extra to be secure. NOPD officers who work neighborhood Details do the same work—stand watch, patrol, investigate criminal activity—that the City pays them to do, but when they work these Details, they are not supervised by NOPD. While any community that wants extra security certainly has a right to pay for it, it raises troubling legal and ethical questions when that extra security might otherwise have been focused on parts of the City most in need of police assistance. We were told by NOPD officers that, pursuant to policy, when they work a Detail they have no obligation to respond to a crime reported near to, but outside, of their Detail area. See Ops. Manual Ch. 22.8.36 (“Commissioned members working paid details will investigate all incidents which occur within the boundaries of the detail area.”).
5. Cost of Details to the City
The Detail system costs the City money it can little afford to spend, while the City could easily be making money for providing the same service. Officers are permitted and even expected to use their NOPD equipment while working Details. In most instances, neither the business nor the officer is charged for the private use of this equipment. NOPD’s vehicle fleet is in significant disrepair, and yet the City pays for the additional maintenance on and gas for vehicles used during Details. If an officer gets injured while performing police duties on a Detail, or is successfully sued for misconduct while working a Detail, the City is potentially liable. Over the past three years, for example, three motorcycle officers who have been in accidents while working Details have had their workers’ compensation claims paid by the City. In December 2009, a canine officer took his dog to his Detail assignment and took the opportunity to conduct a training exercise. The canine died when it fell down an open elevator shaft. The City bore the loss of the approximately fifteen thousand dollars it would cost to replace this trained canine.
B. Fixing the Paid Detail System
It is uncertain whether NOPD’s Detail system can or should be salvaged. What is certain is that the mechanisms currently in place to prevent the type of problems discussed above are insufficient, and far-reaching changes to the Detail system are necessary. As the examples noted above indicate, the mechanisms NOPD currently has in place to ensure officer accountability,
- 73 -

including Detail checks by the Office of Compliance and ICOs, may not be significantly more effective than reliance on ad hoc anonymous tips. NOPD’s ambivalence towards effective accountability in its Detail system is further evidenced by its lax enforcement of Detail related policies, such as Ops. Man. Ch. 22.8, which provides that officers are not permitted to work Details at ABOs. The definition of ABOs —“a place where the sale of alcoholic beverages is the primary source of revenue”— can be, and is, flexibly interpreted, and there is no guidance for supervisors approving the Detail in what “primary” means or how they are to make this factual determination.
Despite recent changes, NOPD’s Detail documentation still does little to encourage accountability. Even with the recently added web-based data entry system, the Paid Detail Authorization Form is still used to initially approve Details. This means that Detail information is still kept on nearly three thousand pieces of loose paper divided among the different districts. This paper-based system undermines effective oversight, a dynamic that is further exacerbated by the fact that the individuals tasked with this assignment, ICOs, have almost no time to do it. An ICO told us that he had very little time for checking on Details when it was just one of dozens of areas of compliance for which he was responsible. While the supervisor said that he does random checks on Details, he stated that he has never thought to ask a business owner how the Detail came to exist or about officer performance on the Detail. With close to 1000 officers working Details, as they are currently structured, it would take a sizeable number of officers to ensure appropriate oversight, including making sure that officers are not working Details when or where they are not supposed to be, and are properly representing the Department when they are working Details.
NOPD needs to immediately stop the decentralized-system of self-negotiated and poorly monitored Details. In its place, the City should create a single office that arranges all outside employment requests. If done right, this office will pay for itself and more. In Miami, for example, such an office makes over one million dollars annually for the City. NOPD should establish a system with appropriately stringent criteria that will fairly assign officers to work paid Details, sending the message that Details are not an entitlement based on favoritism or friendship. NOPD should set Detail pay uniformly according to rank and include a reasonable fee that goes to the City to cover the expenses of the outside employment office, workers compensation, fuel, use of equipment, and any other actual or potential costs to the City. Officers who work outside employment should be required to log into CAD system and the District Commander will have the authority to pull officers to another assignment in the event of an emergency in the area. This new office will pay the officers and take out any applicable taxes in the same manner that taxes are taken out of officer salaries. The 28 hours per week maximum should be examined and likely lowered. In addition, officers with any sustained disciplinary actions should be ineligible to work these outside jobs.
There is no question that working a Detail is a privilege and not a right; a refusal to approve a Detail, or to withdraw approval, is not subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. While a significant number of officers expressed to us their desire that the Detail system remain unchanged, many others acknowledged the problems related to Details. We believe that the changes we recommend have the potential to provide officers better protection from the problems we found. The changes we recommend will help ensure that supervisors do
- 74 -

not play favorites based on Detail positions, or unfairly punish the non-favorites, and that everyone who wants to work extra-time can do so (except those whose behavior has made them ineligible). These changes should provide officers, some of whom told us they pay for their own supplemental insurance, greater assurance that they are covered by City insurance if they are injured while working a Detail. While some officers noted their concern that non-NOPD officers would not have to abide by any new rules and could price themselves below the NOPD officers, the experiences of officers in other cities indicate that this need not be the case.
NOPD already has models, albeit not perfect ones, for a better-regulated centralized Detail system. At the Superdome, the City’s largest Detail, NOPD officers are paid according to rank: Officers make $29.00 per hour; Sergeants $33.00; Lieutenants $35.00; and Captains $39.00. Officers who want to work at the Superdome must fill out a separate employment application and fill out tax forms (I-9, W-4, L-4). The officers are then paid by check. While this Detail is currently coordinated by one NOPD Captain, a City office could and should take over this task.
Similarly, the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation (“NOPJF”) administers a media Detail for movie and television productions under which all of the officers are paid a predetermined amount (normally $25 an hour and up to $75 an hour during a City-wide special event such as Mardi Gras). An officer-administrator is paid 10% of that amount, and the NOPJF receives 4%. The business requesting the Detail pays the NOPJF which distributes the money and provides a 1099 tax form. That 14% in administrative fees could and should go to the City.
Fundamentally restructuring the current Detail system will also protect businesses. Currently, businesses sometimes feel they must pay for Details to obtain the police services that should be provided by NOPD as a matter of routine policing. In addition, businesses have no way to hold officers accountable when they do not show up for their contracted Detail or perform poorly while on Detail. A business owner described this problem in stark detail when he explained that there was nothing that he could do when officers showed up late, failed to show up at all, or failed to provide agreed upon services, all of which the business owner had experienced. Another employer described his frustration that he had no idea whether or not he would actually receive security because everything was handled casually over the phone and he was rebuffed when he requested written confirmation. A new, centrally-run system will help NOPD provide better policing for the City overall and ensure that its individual officers provide better policing as well.
IX. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTIONS
NOPD’s evaluation and promotion practices are deficient to the point that it may be impossible to correct patterns of constitutional misconduct without also correcting the failings of these systems. NOPD’s promotional system does not adequately assess or consistently reward the officers who are best able to police effectively and constitutionally. Promotional decisions do not adequately consider misconduct by officers or their ability to lead with integrity and diligence. Performance evaluations do not sufficiently assess officers’ conduct or value constitutional policing. As they currently function, NOPD’s performance evaluation and promotion systems erode public confidence in the Department, facilitate officers’
- 75 -

unconstitutional conduct, and fail to identify and develop officers with the capacity to lead with integrity.
People inside NOPD and in the broader New Orleans community view NOPD’s promotion and performance evaluation systems as broken. City leadership, community members and NOPD officers share a deep concern about these systems. In November 2010, a NOPD employee satisfaction survey ranked promotions and performance evaluations among the areas about which employees expressed the most dissatisfaction. While a slight majority of respondents agreed that the Department punishes unethical behavior, a mere 17% agreed that the Department rewards ethical behavior. Research shows that departments that reward officers who display exemplary leadership qualities with promotion foster the growth of a values-based, ethical culture in the department. The NOPD survey also found that only 13% of respondents believed that “promotions are handled fairly.” A report by the Business Council of New Orleans assessing the New Orleans Civil Service System noted similar problems in a report released in May 2010. Our review similarly showed significant problems with both NOPD’s performance evaluations and its system of promotions. These problems directly impact NOPD’s ability to assess and promote officers who are effective and ethical.
A. Inadequate Processes to Assess Officer Performance
Performance evaluations are an important tool for a department to help employees improve their skills and effectiveness, and assess employees’ ability for particular assignments. As with promotional assessments, performance evaluations must be carefully aligned to a department’s values, mission, and needs, both as a signal to employees of what the department values and will reward, and to assess employees’ ability to live up to those standards.
NOPD’s performance evaluation system is insufficient in form, frequency and scope to achieve the goals of encouraging, assessing, and rewarding effective and constitutional policing. Our review of NOPD policy, as well as interviews with NOPD officers, supervisors and commanders, City officials, and Civil Service Commission employees, confirmed that the current performance evaluation process is not directly tailored to police work or to individual officer goals. We found that NOPD’s performance evaluation system is out of date and focuses too much on process and too little on substance. NOPD’s policy on Performance Evaluations, Ops. Man. Ch. 35.1, Performance Evaluations, was last updated in 2005. According to the Civil Service Commission, and the Business Council of New Orleans’ report, performance evaluations are used primarily to prioritize which employees should be terminated, in the event that budgetary restraints necessitate a reduction in force. This is a gross-underutilization of a valuable tool.
NOPD’s performance evaluations do not assess an officer’s crime prevention skills and abilities. There are no specific goals for the officers, and no assessment of an officer’s progress in achieving stated goals. Likewise, there is no assessment of an officer’s ability to build effective community partnerships or problem-oriented policing efforts. According to City officials, the city-wide performance evaluations have not changed in 20 years and are badly in need of updating. Consistent with recommendations from outside reviews, Civil Service Commission staff and police officials reported a need for more task-specific evaluations, but
- 76 -

recognize that this would require the creation of different evaluations for different City departments, for which the City currently has allocated no funding. However, each City department, including NOPD, already has the authority and ability to create their own performance evaluation to overlay the City-wide performance evaluation form. NOPD has not done this.
In addition, training for supervisors on how to most effectively evaluate employees’ performance under the current system is insufficient. Supervisors are offered three hours of nonmandatory training that consists of little more than how to complete the city-wide performance evaluation form. Formal performance evaluation appears to be an annual (at most) event, rather than an ongoing process. The Civil Service Commission encourages quarterly evaluations, but we found no evidence of NOPD consistently meeting this goal. There is no formalized system of on-going, documented, supervisory evaluation of subordinates’ work, and we saw very little evidence of informal evaluation.
Performance evaluations should be both formal and informal, with formal evaluations occurring several times a year. Evaluations should be documented to track employees’ progress and growth. Poor performance should also be documented. Documentation is critical so that a new supervisor can understand an employee’s strengths and weaknesses and can build on previous efforts. Each supervisor of an employee during the time period being evaluated should provide input on the employee’s performance.
More generally, NOPD should work with the City and the Civil Service Commission to modify the current City-wide system, or develop a more useful new system. Regardless of whether the current system continues, NOPD should develop its own specific and comprehensive system of evaluating officer performance. This system should recognize that ethical and effective policing are intertwined and assess both. Performance evaluations should build in consideration of the officer’s productivity in all areas of law enforcement, including the officer’s success at preventing crime, helping to build strong prosecutable cases, and engendering community trust. The performance evaluation system should be better integrated into ongoing supervision and should be documented.
B. Inadequate Systems for Promoting Ethical and Effective Officers
A police department’s mechanism for selecting officers for promotion is a critical component of effective and constitutional policing. As officers are promoted they gain wider impact and influence. Promotion decisions convey to other officers and to the community the department’s values and the type of conduct that will be rewarded. To be effective and to ensure that officers and the community recognize the department’s values, the department has a strong interest in ensuring that its promotional system identifies and selects for promotion the most capable and ethical officers, with the greatest capacity to grow and to lead others.
The challenge in developing and implementing a system of promotions that furthers a police department’s effectiveness and integrity is two-fold. First, the promotions system must be thoughtfully tailored to measure the particular skills, values, and traits the department needs in its leaders. To do this, promotional tests and interviews must accurately assess officers’ law
- 77 -

enforcement knowledge and skills, including an officer’s sense of ethics and ability to remain clear-headed under pressure, implement problem-oriented policing strategies, communicate professionally, and motivate others. Second, an effective promotional system must strike the difficult balance between structure and flexibility. A system of promotions must be sufficiently structured to ensure that the process identifies and rewards the values and abilities that the department needs to be effective, and does so in a manner that is fair for all employees. At the same time, a promotions system must be sufficiently flexible to ensure that the best officers are promoted despite the unavoidable imperfections of the assessment process, or unnecessary procedural obstacles. This is particularly true in organizations like NOPD, where a failure to promote the most highly capable and ethical officers both reflects broader systemic deficiencies and contributes to patterns of misconduct.
NOPD’s promotions system does not include any of the components of an effective system. NOPD promotion policies, Ops. Man. Ch. 34.1, Police Officer Classes and Promotional Criteria, Ch. 34.2, Promotion Committee, and Ch. 34.3, Promotional Examinations, have not been revised since 2001-2002. In policy and practice, NOPD’s promotions system is overly focused on process, with limited substantive assessment. Moreover, until very recently, the promotional exam had not been revised in years and was, by all accounts, woefully out of date.
The infrequency of NOPD’s promotions exams narrows the pool of the most capable promotional candidates. Due to the Civil Service Commission’s limited resources, there are too few opportunities for officers to sit for promotional exams. Officers may wait for several years after they are eligible before taking an exam. Recently, for example, the City decided not to fund a sergeant’s promotion exam. Infrequent exams can have a dramatic impact not only the promotion but also the retention of good officers. As noted in a 2007 report by the RAND Corporation, because NOPD exams are infrequent, some officers who seek promotion will resign because, as quoted in the RAND report, “their timing was wrong,” and they do not want to wait for years until the next examination is given. At the same time, when promotion exams are infrequent, old promotion lists remain in effect and higher-scoring officers may leave the Department, resulting in officers who score relatively low being promoted over newer officers who were not given a chance to compete.
NOPD’s promotions system as currently structured does not provide for sufficient assessment to determine which officers should be promoted. There is little consideration of community policing or ethics (persons close to the process report that, promotional candidates in the past “did not do so well” on the ethical scenarios that were incorporated into the exam). The promotional examinations result in a relatively rigid system of employee “bands” that, particularly combined with problems caused by the infrequency of exams, may not enable the Superintendent to select the most appropriate candidates. NOPD’s promotions policy ostensibly takes into account an officer’s disciplinary history. However, NOPD’s complaint investigation system renders this consideration ineffective. Many complaints are not formally investigated when they should be; investigations are not sustained when they should be; and sustained cases do not result in the discipline they should. Current NOPD policy further undermines adequate consideration of an officer’s disciplinary history. By policy, only sustained violations for conduct with an incident date within the previous year of the promotion, and which resulted in a
- 78 -

penalty greater than a Letter of Reprimand, are considered, and denial on even this ground appears discretionary.
NOPD should work with the City and Civil Service Commission to improve the promotions process in NOPD so that it is both equitable and flexible, allowing for promotions of NOPD’s most effective and ethical officers. NOPD, the City, and the Civil Service Commission should also work to ensure that promotional exams are given more frequently. NOPD and the City should develop promotional criteria and assessment tools that ensure that NOPD promotional selection criteria both communicate NOPD’s values and mission, and result in the promotion of officers who most closely adhere to these values and are capable of carrying out its mission. NOPD should require assessment of officers’ community policing and problem solving efforts and abilities, as well as officers’ professionalism, ethics, and integrity, as part of the promotions selection process. Officers with a disciplinary history that does not comport with the behavior that NOPD wants to model for other officers should be disqualified from promotion.
X. MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, AND ADJUDICATION
An effective system for investigating complaints of officer misconduct can prevent constitutional violations and transform a community’s perception of its police department. NOPD’s system for receiving, investigating, and resolving misconduct complaints, despite some strengths and recent improvements, does not yet function as an effective accountability measure. Our review found significant weaknesses in policies governing complaint classification, documentation and investigation, as well frequent departures from existing policies. We found that NOPD’s policies and practices exclude from investigation many categories of serious officer misconduct and fail to adequately investigate and track allegations of discriminatory policing.
In addition to the lack of clear policy guidance, we found deficiencies in resources, training, supervision, and accountability, which serve to weaken investigations and result in poorly-supported investigative outcomes. We found significant problems with how NOPD collects, documents, and analyzes evidence in misconduct investigations, including physical evidence and witness interviews.
Our review also found that the Department metes out discipline and corrective action inconsistently and, too often, without sufficient consideration of the seriousness of the offense and its impact on police-community relationships. As a consequence of these deficiencies and an accompanying lack of transparency, NOPD’s system for investigating and responding to allegations of officer misconduct does not effectively change officer behavior or hold officers responsible for their actions, giving it little legitimacy within the Department or in the broader New Orleans community.
NOPD is making considerable efforts to improve complaint intake, investigation and adjudication. The Department has made both innovative changes, such as placing a civilian at the helm of PIB, and implemented long-overdue corrections to basic policies — such as clarifying an employee’s duty to be honest and truthful at all times; making dismissal the presumptive penalty for not being truthful; and requiring employees to cooperate with investigations and
- 79 -

report misconduct to a supervisor. In making these efforts, NOPD has acknowledged that the objectivity, independence, and integrity of misconduct investigations are critical to police accountability. However, NOPD will need to implement more fundamental and comprehensive change to achieve a truly effective system for investigating and responding to allegations of misconduct, and to restore community and officer trust in this critical accountability system.
A. NOPD Misconduct Investigation Process and Background
PIB is commanded by a civilian Deputy Superintendent who is responsible for overseeing the timeliness and quality of NOPD’s internal investigation process, from complaint intake through the imposition of discipline. PIB’s Administrative Division is responsible for complaint intake, administrative investigations (including assigning most administrative investigations for District-level investigation), and processing sustained investigations for hearings.20 The Bureau’s Criminal Division conducts investigations of most criminal allegations against officers, and its Special Operations Section is responsible for conducting integrity checks, although PIB’s last Annual Report noted that no such checks were conducted in 2009. Allegations of rape, child abuse, and homicide by officers are investigated by the corresponding specialized NOPD Division.
PIB Directives provide that an accused officer’s individual district or specialized component conducts investigations of administrative (non-criminal) allegations, except for those involving positive drug screening results; firearms discharge incidents resulting in formal investigations; criminal complaints occurring outside Orleans Parish, and unauthorized force complaints. PIB Dir. #25. The directives require PIB commanders to consider additional factors when deciding whether PIB should investigate a complaint that would normally be delegated to a District, such as: whether there may be a perception of bias on the part of the subject employee’s immediate supervisor; whether the complaint involves “sensitive issues” or “media attention;” whether the officer is also under criminal investigation in another matter; or at the request of field commanders. A large proportion of NOPD’s internal investigations are thus conducted not by PIB, but by the supervisor (usually a sergeant) of the officer alleged to have committed misconduct. Each District has an ICO who is tasked with ensuring that misconduct complaints are properly and timely investigated. However, as discussed in more detail in the Supervision section of this Report, ICOs and PIB report that ICOs have broad and diffuse responsibilities, and that those responsibilities are often expanded further by District commanders, leaving insufficient time for oversight of misconduct investigations.
Under Louisiana State Law, non-criminal, administrative investigations must be completed, and officers notified of the disposition, within 60 days, unless granted an extension by the Civil Service Commission. See La. Rev. Stat. 40:2531. Even with an extension, which is subject to challenge by the subject officer, the case must be completed within 120 days. Under state law, without “complete compliance” with this timeline there can be “no discipline,
20 In addition to its responsibilities directly related to investigating allegations of officer misconduct, PIB is responsible for administering a number of other accountability related systems including: conducting administrative reviews of officer-involved shootings; reviewing and analyzing use of force reports; and administering NOPD’s early warning system, known as the Personnel Performance Enhancement Program (“PPEP”). These additional accountability systems are discussed elsewhere in this Report.
- 80 -

demotion, dismissal or adverse action of any sort,” regardless of whether the officer committed the misconduct. Id.
NOPD reports that most investigations are completed within two months, with more complex cases taking four months to complete. However, the term “complete” does not mean that the case is resolved, since if the complaint is sustained and discipline is proposed, the subject officer may appeal, thereby prolonging the process. Further, as discussed below, the Department designates many investigations as “complete” without appropriately resolving the allegations of misconduct. Thus, despite some success in this area, the intent of a due date—ensuring that investigation of each allegation is initiated and resolved in a timely manner—is not being met.
According to PIB’s most recent Annual Report, it conducted 1,465 “case investigations” in 2009.21 Of these, approximately 321 were formal investigations (called “DI-1s”), including 129 based on complaints from outside NOPD, and 192 based upon complaints initiated by NOPD. Another 342 of these “case investigations” were actually, by policy, documentation of “minor administrative violations” correctable by “simple counseling or minimal intervention by a supervisor” (called “DI-2s”). The vast majority of these DI-2s (291) were based upon internally-generated complaints. “INFO” cases, or documentation of information that does “not contain sufficient information to initiate an investigation,” accounted for 168 “complaints.” The remaining 634 complaints received and “investigated” by PIB, were resolved with one of the following designations: “NVO” (no violation observed); “NIM” (no investigation merited); or “NFIM” (no formal investigation merited). These classifications fall into NOPD’s “DI-3” category, which, by Department policy, includes complaints that do not warrant formal investigation because, among other reasons: “the actions complained of have no basis in fact;” the complainant “challenges the legality of an arrest or a citation;” the allegation is being investigated by an outside agency; or for “other appropriate reason.”
Significantly, when a complaint is classified as NVO, NIM, NFIM, or INFO, the allegation of misconduct remains unresolved, with no formal determination of whether the allegation should be “sustained,” “not sustained,” “unfounded,” or “exonerated.” Nor is an “informal” complaint finding included on an officer’s “short form,” the documentation used for decisions related to discipline, assignments, transfers, and promotions. In addition, some informally resolved complaints appear not to be tracked in NOPD’s early warning system, called PPEP.22 In addition, a complaint made to PIB may be “cancelled,” but there is no clear instruction in policy regarding what the criteria are for cancelling a complaint. These many exceptions to the requirement that NOPD investigate misconduct complaints thus have the
21 See PIB 2009 Annual Report, Appendix I. The count of complaints and the various sub-categories is not consistent throughout PIB’s 2009 Annual Report. The actual number in any category often varied by a small amount—usually less than five.
22 Ops Manual Chapter 13-27, states that PPEP tracks “personnel complaints (sustained, not-sustained, withdrawn, and pending cases).” It thus appears not to track, at least formally, even exonerated or unfounded complaints, as well as informally resolved complaints. PIB staff provided inconsistent answers regarding whether informal complaints are tracked by PPEP. Over a number of conversations, it became apparent that current use of PPEP is haphazard and inconsistent, and Departmental understanding of how it actually operates is similarly inconsistent and incomplete.
- 81 -

potential to affect not only the outcome of individual complaints of misconduct, but also the overall picture of officers’ conduct over time.
NOPD reports that of 2325 charges23 in 2009, it sustained 354, or 15.22%. Of these 354 sustained charges, approximately 128 came from sources outside the department. Thus, it appears that NOPD’s rate of sustained allegations of misconduct by non-police civilians is approximately 5.5%. Our review of recent internal investigations similarly indicated that sustained allegations result more often from internally generated “complaints” such as a failure to appear in court, although other sustained charges included being intoxicated on duty, shoplifting, and charges related to an off-duty car accident. PIB’s annual reports note that in many instances the final disposition in sustained cases was changed or was still pending, meaning that the allegation has not in fact been sustained and indicating that the actual sustained rate is almost certainly lower than the rate reported in PIB’s annual reports.
B. Deficiencies in Misconduct Complaint Intake and Investigation
1. Outdated and Inconsistent Policies
NOPD policies and directives related to the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct complaints are in critical need of revision, updating and clarification. Current policies, most notably Ops. Man. Ch. 26.2, Disciplinary Hearings/Penalties; Ch. 52.1, Internal Disciplinary Investigations, and PIB Operation Directives, nominally updated in May 2010, include policies that fundamentally undermine NOPD’s ability to fully and fairly investigate misconduct. In other instances, there is a disconnect between the policy as drafted and NOPD’s operational structure or capacity, resulting in a policy with which NOPD officers literally cannot comply, and undermining the credibility of NOPD’s written mandates overall.
Some PIB policy deficiencies appear to have a significant impact on the scope, quality, and effectiveness of NOPD’s efforts to investigate and review officer conduct. Under PIB Operation Directive #3, for example, one of the most frequently complained of and serious types of misconduct in policing is outside the jurisdiction of PIB investigation: where the “complaint challenges the legality of an arrest or citation,” the challenge “must be resolved in the appropriate court of law,” and the complaint should be classified by PIB as “NVO,” or No Violation Observed.
It is appropriate for an agency to decline to investigate complaints that truly challenge only the guilt or innocence of the complainant without alleging officer misconduct, and another PIB Directive does provide that “investigators shall obtain and review all pertinent documentation and information to ensure that no other violations exist.” Furthermore, our review of PIB case files indicated that investigations of allegations of illegal arrest do occur. However, PIB’s policy in this area likely discourages the investigation of allegations of serious misconduct. Indeed, our review of PIB case files confirmed that many allegations of illegal arrests and related misconduct, such as improper stops, detentions, searches, and seizures, are not fully investigated and are instead improperly closed with a “NVO” or similar “informal”
23 Each case may include more than one charge, although the PIB reports we reviewed were not always consistent in presenting this information.
- 82 -

designation.24 In one investigation we reviewed, NOPD closed a case as an informal DI-3 where the complainant alleged that officers planted drugs on his stepson, subjected the stepson to a body cavity search (officers first obtained a warrant), and used unnecessary force in the arrest. When it closed the case informally, NOPD sent a letter to the complainant saying, “The matter of your son being arrested must be adjudicated in State Court.” This policy is particularly problematic given widespread concerns we heard from community members about allegedly illegal stops, searches, and seizures.
We also found a lack of clear guidance about when an investigation can be changed from a DI-1 formal investigation to a DI-3 informal investigation, or why this change was made in particular cases. The ease with which complaints can be downgraded or resolved as NVO, NFIM or NIM undermines the integrity of NOPD’s misconduct investigation process. Our review showed a number of instances, beyond allegations related to searches and arrests, where a formal finding should have been reached but was not. In one case closed without resolution as an informal DI-3, the complainant called 911 after her former boyfriend, an NOPD officer, allegedly tried to kick in her door after she refused to answer his knock. In another case, resolved as INFO, the complainant alleged that an officer “bumped” him with his squad car and left the scene. Other cases closed without resolution that should have been formally resolved include a complaint that an officer was alleged to be assisting criminals and a number of complaints that officers were rude and unprofessional when interacting with community members during pedestrian or traffic stops.
Because it prevents investigation of allegations of even serious misconduct, and results in a systemic failure to track complaints over time, this classification system needs to be fundamentally altered. Complaint classification should be allegation-driven, not outcomedriven, so that all allegations of misconduct are investigated and given a formal disposition of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. The level of investigation should be tailored to the requirements of the case including, for example, the seriousness of the allegations and the complexity of the case.
PIB policies and directives related to the assignment and investigation of misconduct complaints by field supervisors are also deficient in that they assign relatively serious and complex allegations for field investigation and do not provide sufficient guidance to field supervisors on how to fairly and completely investigate misconduct complaints. It is common and acceptable in policing to have field supervisors investigate less serious allegations, such as those concerning demeanor, verbal abuse, neglect of duty and poor response to calls for service. Requiring field supervisors to investigate such complaints can be an important and beneficial component of a department’s accountability system, since the field supervisor is in the best position to provide positive and constructive feedback to his/her subordinates, and in the best position to prevent recurrence of negative encounters between officers and community members.
24 Consistent with the view that pursuant to this policy complaints of illegal arrests and related misconduct are often not investigated is the fact that none of the 2076 allegations listed in the 2009 PIB Annual Report were in a category that would appear to directly encompass false arrest, illegal stop, search or seizure, or other Fourth Amendment violations. There were only 152 allegations for the entire year in the four categories that, while broader, could conceivably capture such allegations: Adherence to Law (121); Abuse of Position (6); False/Inaccurate Reports (21); and Acting Impartially (4).
- 83 -

However, without strong training, clear policy guidance, and close oversight — including by supervisors’ own chain of command — field investigations of misconduct will be sub-par. At NOPD, none of these elements are in place, resulting in demonstrably poorer-quality misconduct investigations completed by field supervisors.
2. Systemic Failure to Investigate and Track Allegations of Bias
Another policy failure that impedes NOPD’s overall ability to investigate and track a significant area of misconduct is the lack of any policy or protocol that provides guidance or structure to the requirement that the Department track allegations of racial, ethnic, LGBT status, or other bias-based profiling. See Ops. Man. Ch. 41.6. Currently, PIB is not tracking allegations of racial profiling or other forms of bias-based policing because it does not have the ability to do so. To the extent that they are tracked at all, PIB complaints are tracked exclusively by rule number violation. Because there is no specific rule violation covering discrimination or bias, PIB personnel told us they would probably classify a racial profiling complaint under “Professionalism.” Of the three types of classifications that PIB uses, DI-1, DI-2, and DI-3, only the DI-3 has a place to note that the complaint concerned discriminatory policing. This is particularly problematic since, as noted above, DI-3s are usually resolved with findings of NVO, NFIM, or NIM, which are not tracked in NOPD’s early warning system and do not result in any formal determination of whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
PIB’s inability to capture or track racial profiling/bias complaints prevents any meaningful study or analysis of those complaints. Indeed, although PIB’s 2009 Annual Report states that there were zero racial profiling complaints that year, there is little question that NOPD does receive complaints of racial profiling and other forms of biased policing. In addition to the many complaints about bias we heard from community members, we found such allegations in the sample of investigative files we reviewed. In one case, a bus driver observed an officer doing a traffic enforcement detail and alleged that the officer cited only black drivers and gave white drivers warnings. PIB conducted an investigation of the case but closed the case with a NVO finding, even though the facts as alleged clearly would have violated NOPD policy. In a separate case that was formally investigated but not sustained, the complainant asserted that the officer used a racial epithet towards him, slapped him, and stole his computer when having his car towed. Consistent with PIB’s statement that it does not track such allegations, these case files did not indicate that these allegations were recognized, or tracked, as allegations of racial profiling or biased policing.
3. Inadequate Training for Complaint Intake and Investigation
Police personnel investigating allegations of misconduct should be among a department’s best investigators and should receive training specific to conducting internal investigations. At NOPD, misconduct investigations are conducted by investigators within PIB and at the District level by supervisors, usually sergeants. Neither PIB nor District-level investigators receive sufficient training. District-level supervisors, despite being asked to investigate serious allegations of misconduct receive little to no training in conducting investigations at all, much less internal investigations. To ensure that all investigations meet a threshold of acceptability, a department must provide substantial and ongoing investigative training to field supervisors, as
- 84 -

well as additional guidance, including investigative templates and written investigation protocols, for “field” misconduct investigations, and thorough quality control checks. NOPD lacks each of these components necessary to ensure adequate District-level investigations.
Many of the investigators within PIB and the ICOs, tasked with oversight of misconduct investigations at the field level, have not been specifically trained in conducting administrative investigations. This training is essential because the rules and methods for internal investigations are often different than traditional criminal investigations. Consistent with our findings about training throughout NOPD, most investigators learn how to carry out their responsibilities through on-the-job experience, based primarily on information passed on from more experienced, but usually equally poorly trained, investigators.
In addition to investigative training, NOPD should train all personnel at every level on their role in taking misconduct complaints. NOPD should explain the mechanics of complaint intake and teach officers and supervisors how complaints can actually be turned into positive police-civilian interactions. NOPD should also make clear to all personnel the consequences of failing to take a misconduct complaint.
4. Insufficient PIB Staffing
Throughout the course of our review, there were 32 total staff in PIB, including investigators, support staff, and managers. This staffing includes a total of fourteen investigators, not including commander/reviewers, or the five investigators in the Special Operations Section, responsible for conducting integrity checks. Four of these investigators are responsible for complaint intake; four are administrative investigators, and six are criminal investigators. As noted above, PIB reported that in 2009 it received 1465 complaints of misconduct and, by state law, has only 60 days (or 120 days if the Civil Service Commission grants an extension) to complete investigations. It is well-settled that NOPD may not discipline an officer if it exceeds this deadline. In one case, for example, NOPD found that an officer discharged his personal weapon during a domestic disturbance, suspended him for fifteen days, and demoted him from the rank of sergeant to officer. The Civil Service Commission denied the officer’s appeal but the State appellate court reversed that denial on the grounds that the investigation exceeded both the mandated initial 60-day period and the maximum allowable 120day period. Davis v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 899 So.2d 37 (2005). In another instance, NOPD terminated a sergeant because he and his wife took two police department vehicles on a personal vacation to Florida, contrary to NOPD rules and City policy. The State appellate court confirmed the Commission’s decision to overturn the termination because the PIB investigation exceeded 60 days. Dunn v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 938 So.2d 217 (2006).
While we did not undertake a formal staffing study as part of our investigation, it appears that, particularly in light of state mandated deadlines, PIB needs additional investigators. Moreover, based upon our interviews and review of case files, it appears that this lack of investigators may be undermining the quality of investigations by encouraging the referral of serious or complex misconduct investigations to field supervisors; the downgrading of cases from formal to informal investigation; and giving short-shrift to investigations to ensure they are completed within the mandated timeframe.
- 85 -

It is critical that a law enforcement agency have sufficient numbers of specially trained and dedicated internal misconduct investigators to investigate more serious administrative complaints of officer misconduct. Likewise, criminal allegations of misconduct, when not investigated outside the agency, should be investigated by specially trained investigators who are kept separate from administrative investigators to avoid contamination of either process. These dedicated investigators, in addition to being well-trained, must also be sufficient in number to ensure that investigations are initiated and completed quickly. Long running or delayed investigations result in lost or stale evidence and are unfair both to the complainant awaiting vindication of his or her rights, and the officer who must endure the stress of an ongoing investigation. Because state law prohibits the disciplining of officers for misconduct if an investigation is not completed within strict state timelines, justice delayed is truly justice denied in instances where the complaint of misconduct was meritorious.
ICOs, if used to their potential, could be a critical adjunct to PIB investigators, allowing PIB to refer some cases for District-level investigation, and requiring less time and focus from PIB to ensure that District level-investigations are well-done and timely. Each District within NOPD is assigned an ICO, who reports to the District Commander. The ICO’s duties are myriad but, at least by policy, all directly relate to ensuring that officers within the District abide by Departmental policy. Among many other responsibilities, the ICO is supposed to meet with community members, review randomly selected arrest reports, “ensure” that PIB cases are “properly investigated,” manage the Field Training Officer Program, and personally inspect Detail sites. The ICO system is innovative and has enormous potential to assist NOPD with a number of its accountability systems. However, as discussed in the Supervision section of this Report, at present ICOs are spread thin, undertaking responsibilities that could be a routine part of supervisors’ and even officers’ daily activities, as well as acting as the administrative assistant to the District Commander. As part of ensuring adequate staffing to conduct misconduct investigations, NOPD should rethink how ICOs are deployed and determine how best to restructure so that they can play a more effective role in overseeing misconduct investigations and reduce the staffing pressures on PIB.
5. Faulty Complaint Intake and Classification
Complaint intake is the critical first step of misconduct investigation. If an individual is afraid to make a complaint, or finds it exceedingly difficult to do so, the police department may never learn of the misconduct. As importantly, if the agency official taking the complaint does not properly and completely document the complaint, a fair and complete investigation will be compromised from the outset.
NOPD has many policies in place designed to ensure that there are no artificial obstacles to complaint investigation: third party and anonymous complaints are accepted, and supervisors are required to receive and document all complaints, even where the complaint does not appear to the supervisor to state a violation of Departmental rule. By policy, complaints can be provided via telephone or letter, and do not need to be written on any particular form. Complaints may be made to the Independent Police Monitor, or via the internet, and NOPD has a complaint brochure and form. PIB commanders told us that “when made aware of it” PIB will
- 86 -

investigate allegations of police misconduct that are alleged in lawsuits against the Department or City (although we found no evidence to confirm this is occurring). NOPD has in place written requirements for documenting the circumstances under which an individual has decided to withdraw a complaint. Moreover, by policy, where an investigator determines that the “violations complained of are so egregious that the department would have an interest in pursuing the investigation without the complainant. . . . the investigation must continue to its logical conclusion.” This policy of broad complaint acceptance is laudable.
We found that in practice, complaint acceptance does not match the promise of NOPD policy. NOPD’s written complaint brochure and form are outdated and misleading. The brochure, which still includes on the cover the name of the former Superintendent, suggests that complaints can be made only to PIB, the DA’s Office, the FBI, or the U.S. DOJ. There is no mention anywhere on the form that complaints can be made to any officer, or any supervisor, anywhere in the City. Nor is there mention that individuals may file complaints with the Independent Police Monitor. The form suggests further that complaints must be made in a particular format.25 After visiting every District station, we noted that posters or other visual information about how to file a complaint were usually absent. Forms were often unavailable. Many District stations were locked and inaccessible even during daylight hours, making it difficult if not impossible for a civilian to file a complaint in person, or even determine how to file a complaint.
A bigger obstacle to ensuring that complaints are received and investigated is the lack of clear direction and variety of opinion among field supervisors over what constitutes a “complaint,” and what “taking a complaint” requires. Pursuant to NOPD policy, misconduct complaints can be made to any officer or directly to PIB. PIB policy provides that PIB is open until 10 p.m. to take complaints, although PIB staff stated that PIB in fact was taking calls until 10 p.m., and now even that is not happening because the sergeant who took those calls was terminated and has not been replaced. It appears that complaints made at PIB will be received and documented. However, it is far less clear what happens to complaints made to individuals outside PIB. It appears that officers are to direct complainants to their supervisors or to PIB to take the complaint, although policy on this point is unclear. Nearly every supervisor we talked with understood that if an individual went to a District station and said they wanted to make a complaint, the supervisor should meet with them. Beyond that, there was little consistency. We received varying opinions from supervisors about whether supervisors must always formally initiate the complaint process or whether they are permitted in some circumstances to refer the person to PIB, or even informally resolve the complaint and not document it. For complaints made outside PIB, there is no documentation or tracking of when a complaint was made and to whom, and the complainant is not given any sort of reference or control number. According to PIB, if the supervisor does not take the complaint, “we probably won’t know.” PIB is aware of this problem and reportedly making efforts to correct it, telling us that it recently became aware of a supervisor’s failure to take a complaint and initiated a formal misconduct investigation against the supervisor.
25 The form notes that “If a complaint is not made to the Public Integrity Bureau, the NOPD will have no means by which to judge the effectiveness of the services it provides or the professionalism of its employees. Therefore, we strongly encourage citizens to use the attached form to file a complaint of police misconduct.” (Emphasis added.)
- 87 -

The confusion about what “taking a complaint” requires appears due in part to a lack of clear policy. NOPD policy on complaint intake is in some respects very specific, including, for example, the exact information the supervisor is to leave on PIB’s voicemail when reporting a complaint. However, overall, the policy is deficient.
Adequate complaint intake often requires ensuring that medical attention is provided, if warranted; taking photographs if the complaint involves use of force whether there is observable injury or not; preserving evidence such as video surveillance records; taking statements of onscene witnesses who may be difficult to locate later; taking officer statements; and completing and attaching related reports. At NOPD there is no apparent organizational dedication to requiring that supervisors take the steps necessary to establish the facts related to an allegation of misconduct. Supervisors are given no clear direction or guidance in this area. Policy is unclear regarding when a supervisor must or should take a complainant’s statement, whether witnesses should be canvassed before they disburse, and whether photographs should be taken or any physical evidence (e.g., camera tapes or clothing) collected. Some supervisors told us they would always take the complainant’s statement; others told us they never would. Most told us they would not take pictures or interview witnesses, although a few said that they would. We found that complaint statements are too often not recorded and the complainant’s statement is often written by the supervisor, with no sign-off by the complainant to ensure that the supervisor accurately captured the entirety of the complaint.
The failure to have complainants write out, or at least review and sign, complaints is of particular concern given the large number of complaints that are resolved with NFIM or NVO findings, which are in many instances based upon the complainant’s putative failure to state allegations which, if true, would constitute a violation of NOPD rules or directives. Similarly, many of the DI-2 files we reviewed did not include documentation sufficient to determine the nature of the initial complaint. There is thus no way for PIB (or anyone else) to ensure that the supervisor of the subject officer identified and investigated each potential rule violation alleged by the complainant.
Another area of particular concern is the delay between the field supervisor’s receipt of the complaint and submitting documentation of the complaint to PIB. For DI-1s, the supervisor must leave a message on PIB’s recorder and submit the documentation related to the complaint within three calendar days. It compromises investigation quality and sends the wrong message to officers to wait three days to initiate a complaint investigation. Complaints of serious misconduct, especially misconduct that has just occurred, require an immediate response. Leaving a message on a recorder minimizes the seriousness of a complaint and is an insufficient substitute for talking with a PIB investigator to ensure that an investigation is being handled appropriately from the outset. For DI-2s, supervisors have four calendar days to submit documentation to PIB, and for DI-3s fourteen calendar days. It is only after receiving this documentation that PIB can fully evaluate whether the field supervisor has properly initiated and classified the complaint. Particularly in light of the 60 day deadline, as well as the insufficient training and lax oversight of field investigations, waiting fourteen days to determine whether a complaint has been properly initiated could significantly undermine any investigation, and is substantially out of line with accepted police practice.
- 88 -

6. Investigations Inadequate to Support Reliable Findings
The quality of an internal investigation, including gathering evidence, analyzing that evidence, and making findings consistent with what a preponderance of the evidence shows, is the heart of misconduct investigations and, in many police departments, also the Achilles’ heel. In addition to training, workload, and resource challenges, police departments often must contend with investigators who may have difficulty making findings against their colleagues, and with complainants who often do not engender investigators’ sympathies. A strong culture of accountability and integrity, often combined with an infusion of outside perspective, can temper these tendencies and allow a police department to reach findings that are credible, reliable, and consistently supported by the evidence.
At NOPD, the mechanics supporting robust misconduct investigations are in some respects in place, and we reviewed many good investigations. The Superintendent’s decision to put in place a civilian to head PIB demonstrates recognition of the importance of injecting a nonlaw enforcement perspective to strengthen the objectivity and credibility of investigations.
But, our review of investigative case files and on-going conversations with PIB command staff and investigators, NOPD officers, and community members, make clear that PIB is not yet working as it should. Policies are not followed; review of the completeness and quality of investigations is lax; findings at odds with the evidence are routinely accepted and affirmed through the chain of command; allegations of misconduct are often not investigated, or are improperly resolved without any determination of whether the conduct was within policy; evidence of misconduct, including physical evidence and witness statements, is frequently not gathered; and evidence is often not fairly analyzed, resulting in findings that are inconsistent with the evidence. In general, we found that investigations done at the District level were of poorer quality than those completed by PIB investigators.
While the deficiencies in the quality of misconduct investigations at NOPD have a myriad of causes, it does appear that, in a few instances, through no fault of its own, NOPD simply does not have sufficient time to complete a fair, thorough, and complete investigation. The purpose behind the state mandate that internal investigations be completed within 60 days is laudable, but in practice it has allowed officers to commit egregious misconduct and get away with it. In order to “complete” an investigation within 60 days, PIB investigators do not always gather and sufficiently analyze the evidence necessary for the investigation to withstand scrutiny. NOPD and the City should work with the State to modify the state law to allow for certain exceptions, as do similar laws in other states, such as where the alleged misconduct involves numerous officers or is particularly complex, or where evidence is newly discovered well into the investigation.
a) Failure to Identify and Investigate all Allegations of Misconduct
With some significant exceptions addressed above regarding the investigation of allegations of illegal arrests and biased policing, NOPD policies encourage the identification and investigation of all apparent misconduct, even if the allegation goes beyond the four corners of the complaint. This approach to investigation allows NOPD an opportunity to review the
- 89 -

officer’s interaction with the public and evaluate not only whether policy was followed, but also whether the interaction indicates training and safety concerns that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, in the cases we reviewed, we found that this opportunity was often squandered, with very little consideration of training and safety concerns, and often, as discussed above, a failure to formally investigate and resolve even obvious policy violations. This was true even where the allegations of misconduct were quite serious, including use of unnecessary force, planting evidence, and untruthfulness. In one case involving all of these allegations, the investigator made little attempt to contact the alleged victim of the misconduct, and closed the case without ever interviewing him.
In addition to a pattern of allegations of misconduct not being investigated, we found also that in some instances allegations were extensively investigated, only to be closed without any determination of whether the conduct was within policy. We found that this was often done by reclassifying complaints from DI-1 formal investigations to DI-3 informal investigations well into the investigation with no documentation supporting the decision. We observed this practice even where the complainant requested a formal investigation and a formal investigation appeared warranted. Complaint classification should be allegation based, not outcome based, and any change in classification should be documented.
We saw little evidence in the files we reviewed of supervisory oversight of the quality and content of investigations. There was often a failure of the chain of command to sign off on an investigation, indicating that there was no meaningful review. The failure to identify and investigate all allegations of misconduct thus appears to be one of more than just policy, and reflects a failure by NOPD to review misconduct investigations and require that they be completed fairly and fully.
b) Inadequate Collection and Analysis of Evidence
To be effective, administrative investigations must collect and analyze evidence. Available evidence is generally in the form of physical evidence, documentation, and information gained through interviews. We found problems with how NOPD collects and documents evidence in misconduct investigations.
Official documentation (e.g., police reports, video documentation, dispatch records, shift assignment sheets and officer activity materials) pertinent to the investigation is not consistently gathered; nor do investigators consistently or thoroughly gather evidence through witness interviews. Although the complaint and related documentation will generally make clear what witnesses must be interviewed, a reasonable inquiry to determine whether there are other persons who may have information is a basic component of any investigation. This inquiry, depending on the nature of the complaint, may involve a canvass of the area of the incident, whether the area is a neighborhood or a police lockup, or review of surveillance videos. Whether a police agency conducts a complete search for witnesses is indicative of the police agency’s dedication to determining the truth of misconduct allegations. We found not only a failure to canvass for witnesses but a failure to interview even known, highly relevant witnesses.
- 90 -

Where interviews were conducted, they appeared to be incomplete or even biased. Unbiased, professional, and thorough interviews of the involved persons and uninvolved witnesses are central to credible and effective evidence gathering. The investigator must be willing and able to appropriately question the version of facts offered by the interviewee, especially where that version conflicts with the physical evidence or information from other witnesses, whether the interviewee is a police officer or civilian. To help ensure all persons interviewed are treated in the same manner, police agencies often establish a consistent protocol for interviews during administrative investigations to ensure and reinforce proper execution of these protocols through training. In NOPD, interviews are not guided by a policy or practice to be consistent and thorough. Most interviews conducted by NOPD are documented in a narrative summary format, which is both very time consuming and difficult to do without letting some modicum of personal bias alter the interpretation of the information offered by the person being interviewed. Nor does it appear that interviews are consistently recorded or reviewed by the chain of command. To monitor and minimize these problems, the Department should develop interview protocols and should ensure that all interviews be audio recorded and reviewed as appropriate for investigative and audit/supervision purposes.
In the cases we reviewed, the analysis of evidence was often poor. We found instances where investigators used witnesses’ statements to the extent they supported officers, but overlooked statements where they supported the complainant. We found that investigators often researched complainant backgrounds to determine credibility but did not document or appear to similarly consider officers’ backgrounds. Factual assertions by officers were often not probed, even where the facts asserted in interviews were not included in contemporaneous official documentation.
c) Findings Unsupported by a Preponderance of Evidence
The ultimate test of the quality of analysis and overall fairness of a misconduct investigation is whether the findings are supported by the evidence. In administrative investigations, the finding must be supported by a preponderance (often described as 51%) of the evidence. We found too many cases where the findings were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We found a failure to sustain allegations even where the officer admitted to the violation, and a failure to even list as allegations obvious violations that should have been sustained. In other cases, we found that PIB exonerated officers when the evidence dictated otherwise. This distinction is more than administrative—as noted above, exonerated allegations are not tracked in NOPD’s early warning system or considered as broadly for personnel considerations as are “not sustained” findings. In general, the standard for sustaining a case appeared too high. One expert noted that the only sustained allegations in the cases he reviewed involved incidents where the officer was arrested.
It is widely believed that having a higher level commander, rather than the internal affairs or chain of command investigator, make the actual dispositive finding for each allegation (i.e. sustained; not sustained; exonerated; or unfounded) may result in findings more in line with the evidence. NOPD should explore this approach.
- 91 -

C. Inadequate Investigations of Criminal Misconduct
Reducing and preventing criminal activity by NOPD officers will require transforming a number of NOPD systems, including recruiting, training, supervision, Details, and use of force investigation and review. Along with these efforts, NOPD and the City must improve the system for investigating alleged criminal misconduct and assisting in the prosecutions of officers who commit crimes. Current practices place significant obstacles to effective prosecutions of officers and their removal from the Department, and must be changed if NOPD hopes to effectively prevent criminal misconduct by its officers.
In 2009, according to PIB, eighteen officers were arrested and seven issued summonses for alleged criminal conduct including aggravated burglary, theft, false imprisonment, kidnapping, perjury, driving while intoxicated (DWI), domestic violence, aggravated rape and aggravated incest. Some of these cases have resulted in convictions; others are awaiting trial. These numbers count only once each of two NOPD officers who were arrested twice in 2009. By comparison, NOPD’s officer arrest rate of 1.3% to 1.8% (depending upon whether summons are included) compares to a New York Police Department officer arrest rate that ranged between .25% and .36% from 2001 to 2006.26 Moreover, the number of NOPD officers involved in criminal misconduct is likely greater than reflected in the data provided by PIB. PIB’s 2009 Annual Report noted that there was at least one instance where an officer was arrested by another jurisdiction, but did not report the arrest to NOPD as required. Additionally, we reviewed instances where PIB investigated officer misconduct that appeared clearly criminal, but there was no indication of any arrest or summons, or referral to the DA’s Office.
PIB criminal investigators investigate allegations of officer misconduct that are potentially criminal and are required to submit cases with apparent criminal violations to the DA’s Office. Pursuant to PIB Directive, the investigator must check the status of referrals to the DA’s Office every thirty days and, after ninety days, inform the complainant that the matter is being reviewed by the DA. If the investigator finds that there are no criminal violations but “suspects administrative violations may have been committed,” the investigation is reclassified from criminal to administrative. Upon reclassification from criminal to administrative, the 60day clock for the completion of administrative officer misconduct investigations begins. PIB does not have policies directly guiding administrative investigators on how to proceed if they discover apparent criminal misconduct in the course of conducting an administrative investigation.
Our review found three overarching problems with NOPD’s internal investigations of criminal misconduct. First, according to PIB and DA officials, as well as NOPD policy, in most instances NOPD does not initiate an administrative investigation until a criminal investigation is complete and the prosecutor has declined prosecution, or if the matter is prosecuted, unless and until a conviction is obtained. Where a case is criminally prosecuted but the officer is acquitted, NOPD reportedly will not investigate whether the officer violated NOPD policies, despite the lower standard of proof and the fact that it is often the case that misconduct that is not criminal
26 This calculation uses 1400 as the number of NOPD officers and 34,500 as the number of NYPD officers. According to NYPD IA reports, the number of NYPD officer arrests was: 2001: 124; 2002: 114; 2003: 103; 2004: 86; 2005: 91; 2006: 114.
- 92 -

nonetheless may violate agency policies. This practice results in a delay in the initiation of the administrative investigation in some cases for months or even years after the incident occurred. By this time, any additional evidence that might be needed is often impossible to obtain. In addition, the delay of appropriate administrative discipline undermines NOPD’s accountability systems. In DWI cases, for example, where there is breathalyzer evidence (and often an admission) indicating the officer’s guilt, there usually is generally no reason for NOPD to wait, often for months, until there is a conviction before completing the administrative investigation and administering discipline. Similarly, where an officer is accused of excessive force but the use of force is not found to be criminal, this same conduct nonetheless may violate numerous NOPD policies and warrant the officer’s termination from the Department or imposition of other significant discipline. Acknowledging these concerns, PIB reports that it has begun to conduct the administrative investigation in some cases while the criminal investigation is ongoing, creating a firewall to keep cases separate. However, this practice, along with important accompanying protections, have not been memorialized in policy or guided by training.
Each internal investigation should be considered individually and where it becomes apparent that the case may in fact involve criminal conduct, it may be prudent to delay compelling interviews of subject officers, and sometimes other interviews as well. Conducting a full investigation short of compelling an interview generally does not compromise either investigation and is often critical to ensuring the later success of the administrative investigation. Regardless of whether or for how long a compelled statement is delayed, a meaningful and timely administrative investigation is particularly important in cases alleging criminal misconduct, given the usually egregious nature of the allegations, the often slow wheels of the criminal justice system, and the very low rate at which these cases are prosecuted (regardless of jurisdiction). Where officers are not guilty of committing the misconduct, they deserve to have the case adjudicated internally and be brought back to work; where an officer is guilty, the community and department have an interest in seeing the officer disciplined or removed from the force without having to wait months or years with the officer on paid or unpaid suspension. The DA’s Office is supportive of this parallel approach to criminal and administrative investigations and the First Assistant reports he has requested that NOPD start taking this approach.
Our second concern regarding NOPD’s criminal investigations of officer misconduct is the apparent lack of adequate bifurcation between the administrative and criminal investigations. Officers cannot be forced to choose between losing their jobs because they disobeyed an order to answer questions, and exercising their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). While an officer may be ordered (or “compelled”) to provide a statement to police department investigators, that statement, and any other evidence that derives from that statement, may not be used against the officer in any subsequent criminal prosecution of the officer. Accordingly, whether administrative and criminal investigations are conducted sequentially or simultaneously, the processes, at least after compelled statements have been taken, should be kept bifurcated so that the criminal investigation is not compromised.
In cases where PIB is essentially conducting parallel administrative and criminal investigations—as noted above, without guidance in policy or training—PIB attempts to bifurcate the criminal and administrative investigations and asserts that it does not allow investigators handling the criminal charge to co-mingle their investigations with investigators
- 93 -

conducting the administrative portion. However, ensuring true separation is difficult in a PIB the size of NOPD’s. Indeed, in our review of DA’s Office prosecutions of NOPD officers, we observed instances, including some quite serious, that were reportedly quashed because the criminal investigation had been infected by information gained directly or indirectly from compelled statements. To avoid this result, and to ensure the fact and appearance of independence and impartiality, at least some criminal investigations of officer misconduct should be conducted by an outside agency. In addition, PIB should immediately develop and implement policies and training to ensure that there is clear guidance and that investigators know how to follow that guidance to keep criminal and administrative investigations separate.
One positive change we observed in this area is that NOPD has ended the egregious practice of transferring officers who had been involved in officer-involved shootings to the Homicide Division and then having a Homicide investigator interview the officer and, at the end of the interview, state on the record that the officer was being compelled to provide a statement, regardless of whether the officer was willing to voluntarily talk about the shooting. This practice not only undermined the normal dynamic in good departments of officers voluntarily talking about shootings they know are justified, it also sabotaged any criminal case in the usually rare instance where the officer’s conduct may not have been justified.
Our third overarching concern about NOPD’s investigations of criminal misconduct relates to how criminal referrals are made to the DA’s Office and what has happened in the past once those referrals are made. NOPD offers no written guidance to administrative investigators on when or how to contact a prosecutor for advice or declination when potentially criminal conduct becomes apparent in an investigation. Currently the practice in PIB is to consult with the prosecutor when the investigator is “concerned” that there may be a criminal issue and the investigator believes the case will be sustained. NOPD should provide written guidance and training to ensure that investigators identify, seek advice, and refer where appropriate, allegations of criminal conduct.
The flip side of this responsibility lies with the DA to prosecute cases where officers have committed serious crimes. Our review of some DA’s Office case files of NOPD officer prosecutions revealed a number of previous decisions which caused us to question whether the DA’s Office investigated and prosecuted potential criminal acts by officers. In one case, the DA’s Office refused to prosecute a referral by NOPD of an officer for indecent behavior with a juvenile and two years later refused to prosecute a charge of simple rape against the same officer. The current DA is now prosecuting a case of forcible rape and molestation of a juvenile against this officer—who remained on the force until this most recent prosecution. It is critical that the DA’s Office expand its efforts to work with NOPD in this area to ensure that criminal investigations are fair and thorough, and that officers who commit crimes do not escape accountability.
D. Deficient System for Administrative Discipline
In any police department, it is vital that the leadership administer a disciplinary system that has the confidence of its police officers and the public. Unfortunately, neither the force nor the public are confident that NOPD’s disciplinary system is fair, and our investigation indicates
- 94 -

that this lack of confidence is well-founded. Internally, officers view NOPD’s disciplinary system as arbitrary, or as unfairly targeting certain individuals, diminishing its ability to improve behavior. Externally, NOPD’s disciplinary system is seen as ineffectual and, in some instances, protective of bad actors within the Department. This perception undermines the community’s confidence in the Department overall. There are measures NOPD can and should take so that its disciplinary system routinely metes out reasonable discipline and treats all similarly situated officers equally. Once such a system is in place NOPD will, in time, regain the confidence of the public and its own officers.
In NOPD’s administrative investigation, the investigator makes a finding and recommends a disposition for each identified allegation. Once completed, the investigation is, according to policy, reviewed by a number of supervisors and commanders for “error checks,” and “content checks,” and then provided to the PIB Deputy Superintendent for final approval. Where there are no sustained violations, the case is closed. At the close of the investigation, PIB is required to send a letter to the complainant and any other involved party, notifying them of the disposition.
Where there is a sustained violation approved by NOPD’s Superintendent, the case should be scheduled for a disciplinary hearing, according to NOPD policy. Disciplinary hearings, pursuant to NOPD policy, are meant to determine the validity of the investigation; recommend a disposition; allow the subject officer to present mitigating circumstances; and recommend a penalty “if the investigation is validated.” See Ops. Man. Ch. 26.2. The Hearing Officer (who may be any of a number of commanders) documents the disposition and penalty recommendation and this information is provided to the Superintendent, who may approve, disapprove, or change any recommended disposition or penalty. The Superintendent’s disciplinary action is documented in a disciplinary letter to the officer. The officer may appeal the disciplinary decision to the Civil Service Commission.
In making disciplinary determinations, NOPD nominally uses a penalty schedule. This penalty schedule was recently updated to increase the penalties for dishonesty and interfering with investigations and to add failing to report misconduct as a rule violation. This penalty schedule, while in need of some further updating and revision, has the potential to be a strong accountability tool. It provides a disciplinary range for rule violations that increases with each recurrence and allows the decision maker to take into account various aggravating and mitigating circumstances to go outside the range. However, officers at all levels acknowledged that the penalty schedule has not been adhered to or been particularly relevant for a number of years.
Currently NOPD has in place no policy regarding the production of PIB files that document disciplinary decisions that are potentially exculpatory to a defendant in a criminal case, such as findings that an officer lied during an investigation; provided false or misleading statements; or submitted a false police report. We reviewed one case where an employee was disciplined for lying during the investigation. Under current policy, this employee would likely be dismissed but, in any event, NOPD should be aware of every employee who may have credibility issues, and should establish a protocol for identifying and producing such materials where appropriate.
- 95 -

NOPD should update its penalty schedule and put in place policies to ensure its proper use (e.g. requiring that all deviations outside the prescribed range are documented in writing and that exceptions to the stated range do not become the rule). More broadly, NOPD should revise its disciplinary hearing structure to provide a greater degree of consistency and integrity to the process by, for example, having a small, defined, and well-trained number of persons (or even one person) conduct disciplinary hearings and document the reasons for disciplinary recommendations. In addition, the Superintendant should document the reasons for every decision to reverse an investigative finding as well as the reasons for accepting or changing any disciplinary recommendation. Finally, the City Attorney’s Office, which should play a larger advisory role at every stage of the investigative process, should provide close guidance at the disciplinary stage to ensure that NOPD’s disciplinary decisions are as fair and legally defensible as possible.
E. Role of the Civil Service Commission in Disciplinary Adjudication
Sworn and non-sworn permanent NOPD employees have a right to appeal the disciplinary decisions of the Superintendent to the city’s Civil Service Commission, and, in adjudicating these appeals, the Commission has an independent duty to ensure that the discipline is in accordance with the rights granted under Louisiana’s constitutionally-based civil service system.27
During our review, people from across the criminal justice system – from individuals in the Public Defender’s office to longtime advisors to the NOPJF to former and current NOPD officials – stated their belief that the Civil Service Commission operates as an impediment to NOPD’s ability to appropriately discipline its officers. There is a shared belief that there are times when officers are rightfully terminated and the Superintendent gets “rolled over” by the Commission. This sentiment was summarized in a 2010 study of the Commission conducted jointly by the Business Council of New Orleans and the Bush School of Government and Public Service: “[i]n addition to stories that expose wrongdoing [by public servants], the media also reports information detailing how disciplined civil servants often escape punishment, thanks to the city’s appeals process… Rightly or wrongly, the public perception is that the city suffers from widespread corruption and a civil service system that is not functioning.”
We reviewed many of the Commission’s recent decisions in which it overturned or modified the discipline NOPD imposed. While we disagreed with some decisions and believe that greater transparency is necessary to improve the Commission’s credibility, we found: 1) that the Commission upholds the majority of NOPD’s disciplinary decisions; 2) many examples in which NOPD itself appeared at fault for a decision being overturned; and 3) that NOPD has only rarely chosen to exercise its power to appeal an adverse decision of the Commission.
27 The Louisiana Constitution states: “No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause expressed in writing. A classified employee subjected to such disciplinary action shall have the right of appeal to the appropriate commission pursuant to Section 12 of this Part. The burden of proof on appeal, as to the facts, shall be on the appointing authority.” La. Const, Art. X, Sec. 8(A). The relevant “appointing authority” here is NOPD.
- 96 -

Although there were Commission decisions that we found questionable, the problems we observed in NOPD’s investigation and adjudication of officer misconduct, alongside a lack of transparency in the Commission’s appeal process, made it difficult to fully assess the extent to which troubling disciplinary decisions are due to the Commission’s failure to stay within the appropriate bounds of review, as is widely perceived, or are instead due to weakness in NOPD’s investigations of officer misconduct and NOPD’s and the City’s defense of disciplinary decisions.
We heard concerns that recommendations to the Commission by past hearing officers were in some instances influenced by bias or favoritism. We found no evidence that such bias was widespread, indeed as discussed below, the Commission overwhelmingly affirms NOPD’s disciplinary decisions. Nonetheless, it is clear that even a small number of notorious decisions by the Commission can delegitimize the process in the eyes of the officers and the public. Further, the almost complete lack of transparency in the way the Commission operates – none of its decisions are posted online, for example – has fostered an atmosphere where rumors can fester. Addressing this lack of transparency by posting Commission decisions in full and online, will give the public and NOPD officers the tools to better understand the Commission’s decisions.
Ultimately, we found that while there may be instances where the Commission made the wrong decision, NOPD and the City should not lose focus on the very real problems in their complaint investigation and adjudication processes. Correcting these deficiencies will improve the Department’s ability to prevail before the Commission to a greater extent than is commonly acknowledged.
1. Commission’s High Rate of Affirming NOPD Disciplinary Decisions
For at least the past four years, the Commission has upheld many more of NOPD’s disciplinary decisions than it overturned or modified, and its rate of affirming NOPD is increasing. For the four years between 2006 and 2009, there was an average of 105 appeals per year of NOPD disciplinary decisions. There are, of course, many cases where discipline is not appealed. In recent years, it appears that roughly half of NOPD’s disciplinary letters were appealed.28 Of the 112 cases appealed in 2009, the NOPD employee won outright in thirteen cases. In addition to those thirteen, there were ten cases in which the Commission modified the Superintendent’s judgment downward in some way.29 In 2008, there were only 80 appeals, but there were twenty-four in which the employee either won outright or won a modification. Thus, in 2008, 30% of the decisions altered NOPD’s judgment, but, in 2009, only 20% did.
28 In 2007, there were 208 letters issued and 115 appeals decided. In 2008, there were 206 letters issued and 80 appeals decided. In 2009 there were 192 letters and 112 decisions. As of October 15, 2010, there were 158 letters issued in 2010. The number of disciplinary letters issued by NOPD does not correspond directly to the number of appeals heard each year because the appeal may be decided in a different calendar year.
29 The Commission cannot increase the penalties assessed by the Department.
- 97 -

2. Role of NOPD and the City in Reversal of Some Disciplinary Decisions
We found a number of examples where NOPD failed to support its disciplinary decisions with evidence, which left the Commission little choice but to find for the testifying employee. Indeed, a former high-ranking NOPD official told us that, in the past, some charges that clearly could not be adequately proven (but were believed to be true) were nonetheless brought against officers in order to put them through the difficult civil service appeal process. This type of action is exactly the harm the civil service system was designed to prevent.
Additionally, City Attorneys often do not join the investigation until too late in the process to ensure that the cases will withstand scrutiny and meet the City’s burden of proof. For instance, in 2010, in a traffic accident case involving two police cars, NOPD failed to call any fact witnesses to contradict the appealing officer’s version of events, even thought the witnesses were police officers and thus should have been easy for the City to locate. In addition, the officer who wrote the police report about the accident only interviewed the other driver-officer, and “provided no explanation for his failure to interview the Appellant even though he determined she caused an accident.” Facing only hearsay to rebut direct evidence, the Commission overturned the discipline.30
In some cases it appears that NOPD’s disciplinary decisions were overturned because they were, in fact, arbitrary. Four of the overturned cases we reviewed from the last two years involved NOPD questionably disciplining officers for failing to attend court. It is essential that officers attend court when asked to do so, and we are aware that NOPD has had a problem in the past because good cases have had to be dropped when officers failed to appear in court. However, in three of cases overturned by the Commission, officers were punished for not appearing in court even though they were excused in advance by the Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) prosecuting the case or were told by the ADA they were not needed. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to find that cause for the imposed discipline was sufficient.
In several cases we reviewed, commanders reviewing investigations appeared to change the disposition of the case or the level of discipline even where the evidence indicated that the original determination was correct. It is sometimes incumbent upon a reviewing official to modify the disposition or level of discipline in a case. However, this should only be done to correct an erroneous determination that is at odds with a preponderance of the evidence, and the rationale supporting the change should always be documented. Our review indicated that in cases where there was an increase in penalty for a documented reason, the increase was more likely to be upheld. In a case ultimately appealed to the state’s Fourth Circuit, an officer was originally issued a letter of reprimand for making a traffic stop while off-duty, in civilian clothes, and in his own car. Then-Deputy Superintendent Serpas increased the penalty to a three-day suspension because it was the officer’s second violation in three years—an increase that fit within the penalty schedule. This was upheld at both the Commission level and on appeal.
30 See Docket No. 7624 (2010) and Docket No. 7447, 7448 (2009) for similar cases in which the Commission determined that the City did not meet its evidentiary burden.
- 98 -

However, in most of the cases we reviewed, these criteria were not met. For example, in a traffic accident case from 2009, there was no dispute over the facts, and the appealing sergeant’s testimony was uncontested. There was no explanation in the record for why the investigating officer and the supervisor’s report, both of which found the sergeant to be not at fault, were overruled by a captain on the Accident Review Board. In another traffic case, again both the investigating officer and the supervisor on the scene found no violation. Here, their findings were “overturned by the Superintendent, apparently based solely on the amount of damage.” The then-Superintendent did not testify to provide another reason.
In another case, a letter of reprimand had been recommended, but a former NOPD Superintendent increased the penalty to a five-day suspension. There was no explanation for the increased discipline in the record, and the Deputy Superintendent who testified at the hearing stated that he had not been aware of the fact that the appealing sergeant had been acting on the advice of her supervisors. He testified that, had he known this, he would not have recommended even the letter of reprimand. Finding that the appealing Sergeant had been acting in good faith, as well as on the advice of her superiors, when she made her mistake, the Commission reduced the discipline back to the letter of reprimand.
We acknowledge that there may be cases where the Commission simply made the wrong decision and nothing that NOPD might have done would have altered that outcome; we certainly reviewed cases where we did not agree with the Commission’s decision. However, it is the responsibility of NOPD and the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that the record, both at the internal investigative level and then at the Commission level, includes all the evidence supporting their determinations. As stated in the 2010 study of the New Orleans Civil Service system, “[u]sually, when a department has its disciplinary action overturned, it is because the managers in the department were either unaware of proper procedure or failed to follow it.”
It is the responsibility of the City Attorney’s Office to advise NOPD so that inappropriate decisions at the investigation and internal review stages are less likely. Where NOPD’s decisions are appropriate, it is the responsibility of the City Attorney’s Office to vigorously defend those decisions before the Commission. Where NOPD and the City do not meet these responsibilities it is not surprising that the Commission finds for the appellant. Where the City and Police Department do meet these responsibilities they will better be able to defend their decisions—to the public and on appeal—in instances where the Commission’s determination was incorrect.
3. Infrequent Appeals of Unfavorable Commission Decisions
The decision whether to appeal an unfavorable decision involves consideration of a number of factors, and we do not make any findings as to whether the City should have appealed any particular unfavorable Commission decision we reviewed. However, we do note that the City and NOPD have asserted that Commission decisions are contrary to law and an abuse of their discretion, yet they have relatively rarely chosen to appeal those decisions. Between the years of 2004 and 2009, the City appealed between zero and nine Commission decisions, averaging fewer than 5 appeals per year. During this same time period, NOPD has received an average of 14.7 outright reversals by the Commission per year, and about seven modifications
- 99 -

per year. The City thus has appealed fewer than a quarter of the unfavorable decisions handed down by the Commission. As NOPD and the City improve their systems for investigating misconduct, including imposing discipline and defending disciplinary decisions, it is likely that alongside an increase in favorable Commission decisions the City’s ability to successfully appeal erroneous Commission decisions to the Fourth Circuit will also improve.
XI. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
Community policing strategies balance reactive responses to calls for service with thoughtful and proactive problem-solving. This problem-solving is achieved in large part by forging robust relationships in the community. The Department’s policies, training, and tactics support neither a community policing orientation, nor the ultimate goal of proactively addressing problems to reduce and prevent crime, rather than merely reacting to it. Within NOPD, the concept of community policing is poorly understood and implemented only superficially. Outside the Department, community members, especially members of racial, ethnic, and language minorities, and the LGBT communities, expressed to us their deep distrust of and sense of alienation from the police. This crisis of confidence and credibility serves as both a barrier to an effective community oriented policing program, and as a compelling reason to prioritize its implementation.
A. Need for Community Oriented Policing
NOPD has publicly acknowledged the need to repair and cultivate community partnerships to more effectively fight crime and increase respect for its officers. Indeed, in August 2010, the Superintendent released a 65-point plan to reform the Department, which opened with a commitment to prioritize community policing and to “listen, collaborate, and respond proactively.” The Department has implemented or announced plans to implement community outreach programs, including: citizen callbacks regarding quality of service; an expanded citizen academy; a partnership with clergy; and an “El Protector” program, which will involve bilingual outreach to Latinos on public safety issues. Additionally, the Department has sought funding and is preparing a Request for Proposal to commission an independent and detailed survey of community attitudes and perceptions of NOPD. While these initiatives are either in the planning stages or too new to allow for close assessment, we commend the Department’s stated interest in genuinely assessing current attitudes toward the police, reaching out to diverse segments of the City, and enhancing community relations.
Nonetheless, considerable work lies ahead if community policing is to be a central feature of NOPD’s culture, decision-making, and organizational structure. As the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing (“COPS”) instructs, a true community oriented policing strategy rests on the key components of: 1) collaborative partnerships between police and the public to identify and solve public safety problems and increase community trust; 2) organizational transformation, that is, the alignment of a law enforcement agency’s management, structure, personnel, and technology systems to support these partnerships and problem solving efforts; and 3) proactive and systematic examination of
- 100 -

identified problems to develop and rigorously evaluate effective responses.31 An effective community policing approach to crime-fighting should integrate these key tenets, and should hold accountable all members and components of the organization for their implementation. We identified barriers that NOPD must address before it can institutionalize the core components of community policing: collaborative community partnerships, organizational transformation, and systematic problem-solving.

B. Lack of Collaborative Community Partnerships

NOPD does not adequately encourage or promote meaningful partnership, interaction, and communication with diverse stakeholders, which is critical to learning about and collaboratively addressing problems in the community. The Department’s Operations Manual addresses “Community Relations” in a 3-page policy, outlining the duties and responsibilities of the Department’s Crime Prevention Unit, and of the designated “Crime Prevention Officers” assigned to each of NOPD’s eight districts. The policy states that Crime Prevention Officers will act as liaisons to community groups; assist in formulating community relations policies for the Department; identify training needs; and “relay information and concerns, through the chain of command, from community groups to the proper authority within the department.” The policy further requires each district’s Crime Prevention Officer to hold a monthly New Orleans Neighborhood Police Anti-Crime Council (“NONPACC”) meeting of neighborhood watch groups and other interested citizens.

Until recently, the functions of the “Crime Prevention” position had been the responsibility of Quality of Life officers in each district, but we were told that these officers were frequently pulled from those duties when the platoons were short on manpower. In July 2010, the Department created the position of Community Outreach Coordinator Sergeant, also known as “CoCos,” who have assumed some of the responsibilities described in the Operational Manual, and who appear to have more authority and autonomy than the Quality of Life officers. Although the CoCo sergeants appeared engaged and committed to enhancing community relations, at the time of our review, they described themselves as essentially “self-taught” and in need of specialized training in community- and problem-oriented policing principles.

In November 2010, the CoCo sergeants, along with other supervisors and a number of advocacy organizations, attended CRS’ training in basic law enforcement mediation and racial profiling. Another participant in the training was the Department’s Hispanic Liaison officer, a position the Department created in mid-2009 and that has improved dialogue between the Department and some groups in the community. The officer conducts a weekly radio show in Spanish, makes public presentations, reaches out to Spanish-language media, and also serves as the Department’s primary interpreter while on-duty. Although creation of this position was a positive step, the Latino organizations we spoke with said broader and more extensive engagement and communication is sorely needed.

While CoCo sergeants have begun attending their districts’ NONPACC meetings and neighborhood homeowners’ association meetings, outreach to other sectors of the community,

31

See http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=36, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services.

- 101 -

which have traditionally had less sustained and positive interaction with police, has been far more limited. One CoCo sergeant, for example, described language barriers in engaging heavily immigrant communities. He also noted that the CoCos tend to avoid more volatile neighborhoods out of fear of citizens labeling those contacted as “snitches.” He further observed, more generally, that in “high crime neighborhoods, officers may stay five minutes explaining a crime whereas in the rich part of town they might stay ten minutes. Officers aren’t inclined to listen to someone they believe is a suspect. The culture here forgot that we are required to protect and serve.”
Minority community groups nearly uniformly said that the police rarely reach out to them, for any purpose. One member of a Vietnamese community organization reported that “[a] lot of the young Vietnamese people who get shot in this community, we know who shot them but the New Orleans police don’t do anything. They don’t talk to us. They don’t build community relationships.” We found that some NOPD officers tend not to view members of the public as potential collaborative partners or sources of information and insight about their communities, but rather as potential problems, cultivating an “us vs. them” atmosphere of mutual distrust. Some community members said that such assumptions and perceptions by the police are especially evident in their interactions with young people. One young community organizer told us that, “Officers are on a power trip. NOPD needs to learn how to talk to young people. They get harassed like no other in New Orleans. Whether you’re white, black or Asian, or Latino [young people] get treated like crap. They see us as a walking problem.”
Many within and outside of the Department observed an NOPD “culture” of discourtesy, disrespect, and an unwillingness to listen. This constitutes a significant barrier to successful outreach to the community and to the creation of constructive partnerships. One community leader said that when officers engage with members of the community, they too often do so with an “arrogance, a hostility, a rudeness and vulgarity. It’s not everybody, some people know how to talk to people, but it’s the culture.” The prevalence of discourtesy and disrespect was acknowledged at the highest levels of NOPD, with one member of the Department’s leadership observing: “I don’t know where this thing, this thing that we have to demoralize people in getting our point across … I don’t know where this disrespect thing came from … I’m trying to get officers to understand that the public just wants to know why they are being detained, the purpose of the citation, what are my recourses and just show me some professionalism, and some courtesy, and some respect. The public is hungry for this type of interaction.”
He went on to recount being at the scene of a homicide and seeing a woman in her kitchen window, looking out. “I went over to talk to her through the screen, talking about her living conditions and why she’s still living back here, when they’re going to tear this building down. She said, ‘You know, I tried to talk to the officers on the scene about what happened.’ I said, ‘You know what happened?’ She said, ‘Yeah, I did.’ I said, ‘What did the officer tell you?’ She said, ‘he said get the F off this scene. Get behind the yellow tape. So I got behind the yellow tape and went into my apartment.’ So we almost lost that witness who was wanting to help and the officer was being belligerent. That’s what I’m trying to get the officers to understand, that every contact is important, no matter how old, young, rich or poor, that person can be your biggest advocate.”
- 102 -

Our review found that NOPD has a particularly long way to go to repair its reputation, build trust, and create community partnerships with the City’s minority citizens. Indeed, a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that trust in the police, though lacking across the board, differed considerably by race. For white respondents, 59 percent said they trusted the police to do what is right “almost always” (18 percent) or “most of the time” (41 percent). At the same time, only 34 percent of African-American respondents said they could trust the police “almost always” (9 percent) or “most of the time” (25 percent).
Citizens, particularly youth, African Americans, ethnic minorities, and members of the LGBT community, spoke of discourtesy, harassment, unwarranted stops, and arrests for minor infractions. They consistently reported that these tactics serve to drive a wedge between the police and the public, antagonizing and alienating members of the community. In the Latino and Vietnamese communities, language barriers and a lack of cultural fluency further impede effective engagement with the police. Encouragingly, however, participants in our community meetings consistently told us that they are ready to work with, and toward, a police department that is inclusive, respectful, and fair in its service delivery and enforcement of the law. Improved relationships with the community will benefit the Department by enhancing people’s willingness to report crime, work with the police in problem-solving efforts, and be the “eyes and ears” for the police.
C. Challenges to Achieving Organizational Transformation
Organizational transformation requires that a police department integrate and embed community- and problem-oriented policing principles into each aspect of its management, structure, and use of resources. To ensure that change is sustained and more than superficial, an agency must review its leadership, policies, climate and culture, systems of accountability, and training and deployment of personnel.
As an initial matter, we observed that outside of the CoCo sergeants, few others within NOPD could articulate the basics of community policing, especially its “problem solving” component. Indeed, officers tended to describe community policing as the domain of the CoCo sergeants, rather than as a shared, Department-wide, responsibility. Apart from the Operations Manual chapter on Community Relations, which lacks substance and primarily describes the responsibilities of “Crime Prevention Officers,” there are no policies to require or guide patrol officers in integrating community policing strategies into their assignments.
We also found that training in community policing principles and techniques—for CoCo sergeants and even more critically for patrol officers—is both qualitatively and quantitatively deficient. Currently, the Department offers just four hours of training on community policing to recruits at the Academy, and no mandatory in-service training to reinforce those skills and concepts. NOPD does not incorporate community policing concepts and strategies into the field training program or the “traditional” academy courses on patrol procedures, investigations, traffic enforcement, and use of force; nor does it offer training in problem solving techniques, such as the “SARA” (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) approach to identifying, assessing, resolving, and evaluating its collaborative efforts to reduce crime. In-service training on verbal de-escalation of conflict, language barrier policing, and cultural sensitivity are
- 103 -

similarly lacking, though the Department did recently introduce a unit entitled “Latino Cultural Awareness,” and plans to roll out an expanded version. Other than that course, which a Latino community organization helped to develop and present, the Department has not solicited community input in assessing training needs or developing curricula.
The Department also lacks systems and measures to ensure accountability for and to determine the impact of community policing efforts. Neither recruits’ “Daily Observation Reports” nor patrol officers’ performance reviews evaluate engagement with the community, and success in utilizing community policing strategies is not a criteria for promotion. Apart from NONPACC meetings, the Department does not report on community partnerships; or evaluate or measure how these meetings and partnerships help identify and effectively respond to public safety problems. COMSTAT, the weekly crime meeting that the Superintendent opened to the public in May 2010, has the potential to serve as a useful tool to hold commanders and supervisors accountable for implementing community policing. Although some of the CoCo sergeants reported that they now attend and present at COMSTAT, our observations of COMSTAT meetings and review of COMSTAT materials confirmed that its predominant focus remains the recitation of crime statistics. The Department does not presently utilize COMSTAT as an effective means to gauge what specific efforts are being made to improve community relations, or how these efforts are aiding in addressing crime.
As discussed above, officers consistently reported that pressure to conduct stops and arrests diverts attention and resources from quality arrests, community engagement, and more considered problem-solving. One commander observed that community policing had become a “buzzword” in the Department but “we have to go to COMSTAT and produce. I can’t say I went out and shook 2000 hands. If I said that, someone else would be sitting in this chair.” We heard this sentiment repeated often in our conversations with both patrol officers and supervisors. One Lieutenant could recite crime statistics for his district for the previous week, but could not provide basic information about the demographics or businesses in the district.
The Department’s deployment of personnel reflects this emphasis on arrests and statistics; staffing is heavily concentrated into specialized units and task forces, which engage in the crime suppression tactics that the Department calls “proactive policing,” as opposed to uniformed patrol platoons, which handle calls for service. The Special Operations Division (“SOD”) also functions as essentially a city-wide task force unit, in addition to handling more typical SWAT duties such as hostage situations, barricades, and high-risk warrant service. SOD patrols the City in full SWAT uniform and gear on a daily basis, an unusual practice with strong potential to project hostility and intimidation. Some within NOPD, including supervisors, acknowledged this potential, recommending that SWAT be used only for special deployments because of this dynamic.
The emphasis on statistics-driven policing leaves officers with less time or opportunity to constructively engage with the community. Arresting people in situations where a warning or a citation would serve a tantamount purpose takes time away from more important law enforcement needs. Indeed, the Metropolitan Crime Commission estimated that each of the 20,000 NOPD arrests last year on misdemeanor or traffic warrants took an hour to 90 minutes of an officer’s time, or between 35,000 to 40,000 hours. For their part, platoon officers told us that
- 104 -

they spend their shifts traveling between calls for service throughout their districts, and are rarely able to cultivate relationships or meaningfully communicate with members of the public. Such dialogue is critical to identifying community problems and unique needs, gaining the trust of the public, determining strategic deployment of resources, and problem- and crime-solving. The Department plans to conduct a staffing allocation analysis, which should help identify whether such issues exist and how to re-deploy personnel to address them. It is critical that in conducting that review, the Department align its assessment with a community policing philosophy.
D. Lack of Systematic Problem-Solving
The third major component of community policing involves proactive problem-solving, executed in a systematic and routine manner. COPS defines problem-solving, in the context of community policing, as follows: “Rather than responding to crime only after it occurs, community policing encourages agencies to proactively develop solutions to the immediate underlying conditions contributing to public safety problems. Problem-solving must be infused into all police operations and guide decision-making efforts. Agencies are encouraged to think innovatively about their responses and view making arrests as only one of a wide array of potential responses. A major conceptual vehicle for helping officers to think about problem solving in a structured and disciplined way is the SARA problem-solving model.”
With the exception of just a few officers in command positions, those within NOPD were uniformly unfamiliar with proactive problem-solving methodologies and concepts. The district task forces are charged with carrying out “proactive” duties for the Department, yet their singular focus is on making arrests and cooling crime “hotspots” in a fundamentally reactive manner. Several officers observed that to date, NOPD’s proactive efforts have not yielded sustainable change in volatile neighborhoods, yet the Department continues to repeat the same enforcement cycle. Daily deployments of resources appear to depend largely on the previous day’s reports or tips received, rather than on any effort or plan to address identified trends and patterns. Although the Department has technologies like density mapping and visual mapping at its disposal, we did not see task forces using them to forecast crime patterns. Moreover, there is virtually no coordination among specialized units or process to avoid conflicts in operations, and uniformed patrol officers are largely unaware of what tactical units are doing in their districts, creating potential officer safety issues.
We also found that NOPD does not provide adequate direction, incentive, training and opportunity for uniformed patrol officers to engage constructively with the community. Officers have generally not been assigned to fixed geographic areas within their districts, although one commander, who was well-versed in the fundamentals of community and problem oriented policing, did say he had recently begun keeping patrol officers in specific zones. Some districts have also implemented walking beats, although their use appeared to be sporadic and subject to factors like manpower and weather. Patrol officers are viewed, and view themselves, as responsible strictly for responding to calls for service, and not for watching and listening to identify and assess problems within neighborhoods.
Although COMSTAT has the potential to advance problem-solving efforts, the Department does not currently use it for that purpose. COMSTAT does not encourage a
- 105 -

collective mission of reducing crimes in neighborhoods while minimizing friction and confrontation with citizens. We observed no exploration at COMSTAT of issues underlying crime, potential collective solutions, or how to strategically align resources Department-wide to address a common crime problem. We saw very limited use of crime mapping or similar technologies to visualize trends and patterns, other than to display number and location of arrests. Additionally, we saw no evidence that the Department utilizes COMSTAT to hold supervisors accountable for their officers’ performance – either to promote the use of community and problem-oriented policing strategies, or to identify performance and integrity issues.
XII. OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Officer assistance and support services are a significant component of a department’s accountability system. The demeanor, judgment, and physical abilities that make an officer effective in carrying out law enforcement duties can be dangerously impaired when officers work under inordinate stress levels or while grappling with symptoms of mental illness. Police executives owe a duty to their community and officers to provide the services necessary to ensure the mental and physical wellness of their officers. NOPD is failing to provide such critical officer assistance and support services.
Stress is not an excuse for police misconduct, but officers who are mentally and physically fit generally are more productive; use fewer sick days; and importantly, may receive fewer complaints regarding demeanor or use of force. There is little question that NOPD is in need of officer assistance and support services. We repeatedly received reports of NOPD officers’ unsuccessful efforts to seek out stress and mental health counseling. Supervisors and command staff reported that officers have approached them with questions about the availability of services. Representatives of the local chapter of the FOP and other law enforcement associations and training organizations relayed stories of NOPD officers seeking services. Officers expressed to us directly their frustration about the lack of stress and mental health counseling available to officers and their families.
Some of the need relates to the daily stressors of police work. There is also a continuing need to address the effects of NOPD officers’ experiences during Hurricane Katrina. An April 2006 report by the Centers for Disease Control found that one in five NOPD officers selfreported symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). More than one in four NOPD officers self-reported symptoms of major depression. And reminders of Katrina still remain throughout the City. Many officers patrol areas devastated since 2005. A NOPD mental health professional speaking of PTSD noted: “Where’s the ‘post’ to this? The effects of Katrina haven’t ended, they go on and on.”
There are few officer assistance and support services provided by NOPD, and those that exist are uncoordinated and difficult to access. Mental health counseling to help officers and their families combat stress and cope with traumatic incidents, are available on an ad hoc basis at the District level, placing referral and approval control with the District commanders. This lack of Department-wide direct access leads to less confidentiality and less accessibility, resulting in fewer officers seeking and obtaining services.
- 106 -

This lack of services forces officers, and associations like the FOP, to search outside of NOPD for stress and mental health treatment. The FOP, for example, is working with the Southern Law Enforcement Foundation to develop a peer counseling program. These services are potentially helpful and welcome, and NOPD’s present leadership has appropriately embraced these efforts. However, these nascent programs are not a substitute for a comprehensive range of officer assistance services.
NOPD currently contracts with two mental health professionals, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, both of whom focus primarily on conducting fitness for duty (“FFD”) evaluations on behalf of the Department. These FFD evaluators are often called upon to provide counseling and other support services. FFD evaluations identify officers with potential psychological difficulties that may manifest themselves in inappropriate police behaviors, and are thus critical to helping a law enforcement agency ensure that its officers are able to serve safely and effectively. Professionals conducting these evaluations owe a duty to the department and confidentiality to the officer generally is not guaranteed. When the FFD evaluators provide other services to officers, they may have a conflict of interest between what is best for the officer and what is best for the department. For this reason, both the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Consulting Psychologists and the practice guidelines from the Police and Public Safety Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police caution their membership to avoid assuming multiple roles with the same individual when at all possible. Nonetheless, the mental health professionals performing NOPD’s FFD evaluations recognize the unmet need in NOPD, and attempt to meet that need as best they can.
At NOPD, the potential risk caused by the dual role its FFD evaluators play is exacerbated by a lack of clarity about what services they are being asked to provide. The FFD policy appears to be primarily focused on the use and or abuse of sick leave, not assessing the psychological fitness of employees. Yet, the mental health professionals’ contracts state that they should conduct FFD evaluations. Without clear policies and protocols that clearly delineate professionals’ roles and the services they are being asked to provide, the risk of conflicting duties and responsibilities is increased.
It appears that a comprehensive system of officer assistance and support services for NOPD officers has never been in place, and that efforts to create a system have been faltering, even after Hurricane Katrina underscored the need. NOPD can better serve its officers and protect the public by implementing a centralized and comprehensive range of officer assistance and support services to address the stress and mental health needs of its employees.
XIII. INTERROGATION PRACTICES
Custodial interrogations can be an integral part of police investigations. They may lead to a reliable confession, often the most important piece of evidence in a case. Even where they do not, they may result in leads that can be used to build present or future cases. However in their eagerness to obtain the evidence needed to make a case, or sometimes due to a simple lack of knowledge about what the law permits or how to protect their cases, detectives may use methods that run afoul of the Constitution — running the risk that the wrong person will be prosecuted, or that the prosecution of the right person will fail because of unlawful tactics used during the
- 107 -

interrogation. Ensuring that custodial interrogations are robust but not abusive, leading to strong evidence and legitimate convictions, not false confessions and thrown-out cases, requires that the detectives that conduct them have skill, strong training, and integrity — and can document the propriety of their conduct.
Custodial interrogation involves the questioning of suspects by law enforcement officers under conditions that the suspect would not feel at liberty to cease the questioning and leave. See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995). The Constitution provides certain protections to suspects during custodial interrogations, including the right to counsel and the right to remain silent. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Not only do suspects retain such rights during custodial interrogations, but law enforcement officers are required to warn suspects of their rights, and provide an opportunity for the suspect to exercise or waive their rights. Id. The warnings that law enforcement officers are required to provide — known commonly as Miranda warnings—require that the suspect “be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Id. at 478-79. The Constitution also provides suspects due process protections against coercive interrogation methods such as physical violence or the threat of physical harm; lengthy interrogations involving sleep and food deprivation; or lengthy incommunicado interrogations. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (due process protections); Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156 (1953) (physical violence); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (threat of physical harm); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944) (sleep and food deprivation); Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) (lengthy incommunicado interrogations).
NOPD’s custodial interrogation practices reflect many of the same problems we found throughout NOPD: inadequate policies, poor or non-existent training, weak supervision and accountability, and inadequate facilities and equipment. As a result of these problems, NOPD does not adequately use custodial interrogations to build cases. NOPD detectives conduct relatively few interrogations and the interrogations they do conduct are desultory. We did find practices that could facilitate and hide constitutional violations of criminal suspects’ rights, as well as allegations that such violations in fact occur. Our overarching concern is that as NOPD begins to focus more on building strong cases, and thus presumably will be conducting a greater number of interrogations, it runs the risk that many of these interrogations may be neither effective nor legal. To ensure that this does not happen, NOPD should revise its interrogation policies and practices.
A. Custodial Interrogations
Within NOPD, custodial interrogations are conducted by detectives assigned to specialized investigative units, such as Homicide and Sex Crimes, and by detectives assigned to the various Districts investigating property crimes and crimes of violence that do not involve homicides or sexual assaults. Reportedly, patrol officers do not typically conduct custodial interrogations. Instead, patrol officers will often conduct questioning before placing a suspect under arrest, thus removing the custodial aspect of the questioning and the necessity of Miranda warnings. Such on-the-scene questioning by patrol officers is often brief. In more serious cases,
- 108 -

as when a patrol officer responds to the scene of a major crime, officers are trained to defer questioning of a suspect to the responding detectives.
Interrogations are conducted in various NOPD locations, depending on the unit or detective conducting the interrogation. The Homicide Unit, for example, has two interview rooms, each equipped with video recording technology. Both rooms are adjacent to a monitoring room, in which the recording equipment is stored and observers can view the interior of the interview rooms. Similarly, the Sex Crimes Unit now has a dedicated interview room with video recording technology and a monitoring room. The various Districts, however, struggle with dedicated space for interview rooms. Most District interview rooms double as storage rooms. All of the Districts have audio recording capability, but few are equipped with video recording technology. District 8, for example, has video recording technology, but this is largely due to the efforts of the detectives in the District who have set up the system themselves. District 8 uses VHS tapes to video record interrogations, as opposed to digital recording, and the detectives usually bear the costs of purchasing the necessary tapes.
In New Orleans, NOPD detectives refer to the fact-gathering interview phase of a custodial interrogation as the “pre-interview” phase, and the interrogation phase as “the interview” or “the confession.”32 NOPD detectives do not employ the phrase “interrogation.” In reality, there appears to be very little actual interrogation conducted during the “interview” or “confession” phase. Any interrogation, in the traditional sense of the word, is actually taking place during the unrecorded “pre-interview” phase, and “the interview” or the “the confession” usually consists of only the suspect’s recorded statement. As one of the NOPD detectives explained the process, “the pre-interview is everything we do before we turn on the tape.”
It appears that the interrogation process routinely employed by NOPD is not unduly lengthy. In fact, most interrogations are reportedly concluded in under an hour. Rarely do interrogations continue for several hours, and in no case could we find interrogations lasting a day or longer.
Homicide detectives said that they attempt to obtain statements from every suspect arrested. The Homicide Division does not, however, track the number of cases that involve confessions. Until recently, the Sex Crimes Unit did not conduct interrogations at all. The practice within that unit was not to conduct interviews of suspects. Sexual assault cases were thus built largely on the testimony of the victims, particularly in light of problems with NOPD’s crime lab, as noted earlier. This practice has since changed and interrogations are now viewed as an important part of sex crimes investigations.
NOPD will at times utilize a Computerized Voice Stress Analysis machine (“CVSA machine”) and a polygraph. While we did not find any NOPD statistics indicating how successful NOPD has been using these devices, we were told that, in one District, officers
32 Ironically, the only unit not employing this terminology was the NOPD Training Division. The training personnel we interviewed had never heard the phrase “pre-interview,” and the training materials we reviewed referred to “interviews” and “interrogations.” This is further evidence of a larger NOPD trend, in which what officers are taught during official NOPD training is contradicted by what they learn in the field.
- 109 -

primarily used the CVSA machine on “victims” where the officers suspected false reporting. We also noted that NOPD has very few trained examiners for either device.
Juveniles are rarely brought to NOPD District stations for questioning. Instead, juveniles are transported to the Juvenile Intake Unit, which is equipped with audio and video recording capability. Juvenile suspects are required to be accompanied by a parent or guardian during questioning. Miranda warnings are to be given to both the juvenile and the parent or guardian, and the juvenile is required to have adequate time to consult with the parent or guardian before choosing to invoke or waive his or her rights. Juvenile witnesses and victims are to be interviewed by trained forensic interview experts at a specialized facility in Children’s Hospital.
B. Problems with NOPD Interrogations
Our review found a number of problems with NOPD’s interrogation practices. We found that NOPD's policies about what constitutes a constitutional interrogation are inadequate, as is NOPD's training and selection of detectives. NOPD practice further undermines the effectiveness and integrity of NOPD interrogations. Audio and video recordings of interrogations reflect that detectives do not conduct, or at least record, a full interrogation. Documentation of interrogations is poor due to a number of deficient practices and systems, including that: most of the Districts lack dedicated space and video recording equipment; officers only record a final summary statement by subjects and/or witnesses; officers generally destroy notes from unrecorded portions of interviews with subjects and witnesses after completing investigative reports; and taped interviews in the Districts are preserved inconsistently, if at all. Taken together, these deficiencies not only undermine NOPD’s efforts to build strong criminal cases, they could also facilitate and hide constitutional violations of criminal suspects’ rights. Indeed, we found credible allegations that such violations have occurred.
The current NOPD administration and the broader New Orleans’ criminal justice system appear well aware of the problems with NOPD’s interrogation practices. The DA’s Office recently began working more closely with NOPD detectives in order to improve interrogation practices and documentation.
1. Flaws in Interrogation Policies
NOPD policies provide very little guidance on appropriate methods of conducting interrogations. There are several particular omissions in NOPD policies on interrogations worth noting. First, the policies fail to discuss the basic purpose and importance of conducting interrogations, or the risks of employing certain interrogation methods, including the danger of eliciting a false confession. Second, the policies do not provide any legal references or constitutional standards to place the rules and procedures of interrogation into context for the detectives. Third, the rules and procedures regarding adherence to legal safeguards are inadequate, failing to, inter alia, address the rules and procedures to be followed when a suspect invokes constitutional or other legal rights, or how prosecutors’ discovery obligations impact how detectives document and retain records of their interrogations. Fourth, the policies do not include any express prohibitions on interrogation methods, such as physical violence or threats of
- 110 -

harm. Finally, the policies do not address the importance of documentation of the interrogations, and do not set forth procedures for documentation.
2. Insufficient Training and Selection Requirements for Detectives
NOPD does not adequately train or select detectives, impacting the quality of custodial interrogations. NOPD provides very little formal training to its detectives regarding custodial interrogations. We were told that during recruit training at the NOPD Training Academy, police recruits are taught basic differences between a police interview that seeks information about a crime, and a police interrogation that seeks to obtain a confession from a suspect. Legal issues involving Miranda warnings and waivers are reportedly also covered during basic recruit training. There is, however, no NOPD training specifically tailored for detectives conducting interrogations. Any training detectives receive is usually conducted through private outside courses. Using outside training courses can bring in needed outside expertise, but supervisors should carefully examine all outside training because some courses and instructors overstate their effectiveness, and encourage techniques that may violate constitutional safeguards, or that create a risk of obtaining false confessions and unreliable information.
NOPD also has too few personnel trained to properly use CVSA machines and polygraphs. NOPD does not provide adequate training to detectives on how to use these machines most effectively during an investigation, or on the dangers of overreliance on these machines.
The selection of detectives for Districts and specialized units appears inconsistent with policy and poorly understood throughout NOPD. It appears that to be a District detective, an officer must have at least two years of experience on the job, but this rule does not appear to be strictly enforced. One detective interviewed knew of several officers selected for detective immediately following their post-academy field training. Applicants for District detective positions do not undergo any special selection process or application procedure. For specialized units, such as the Homicide Division, the minimum experience is five years, but this rule too seems to be subject to exceptions. Specialized units require supervisor recommendations and samples of the officer’s investigative reports.
3. Failure to Conduct Full and Complete Interrogations
NOPD does not conduct interviews and interrogations in a manner sufficient to build strong cases. Prosecutors attribute NOPD’s failure to conduct full interrogations to a lack of ownership for the prosecution of a case after a suspect is arrested. Defense attorneys agreed with the notion that NOPD is driven by arrest statistics, but suggested a different reason for NOPD’s lack of post-arrest interrogations: a desire to avoid discovering exculpatory information during the interrogation that would interfere with the arrest or prosecution of the suspect. Our finding that NOPD only conducts interrogations post-arrest and does not expend much legitimate effort to obtain confessions or investigative leads from interrogations, is consistent with both explanations.
- 111 -

4. Deficient Documentation of Interrogations
NOPD does not adequately document its interrogations. Miranda warnings are reportedly provided at the start of the “pre-interview” and waivers are obtained prior to questioning. The “pre-interview,” which appears to include the bulk of what would, under normal practice, be considered the interrogation, is not recorded with audio or video recording by NOPD detectives. In fact, the “pre-interview” is rarely documented in any significant manner at all. This means that any interrogation techniques and methods employed by the detectives during the “pre-interview” are not recorded or documented, making it difficult both to confirm that detectives are conducting proper pre-interviews, and to defend proper conduct when it is questioned.
The only video or audio recording appears to be that of “the interview” or “the confession.” The recorded “interview” or “confession” in cases where the suspect is willing to make a statement is usually just a summary statement by the suspect of what was discussed during the “pre-interview.” Miranda warnings are provided again at the start of the recorded confession. Documentation of the entire process is limited to a report prepared by the detective taken largely from the detective’s notes from the interrogation process. In a practice our experts found particularly concerning, it is routine for NOPD detectives to then destroy their notes after preparing the report.
In addition to the audio or video recording, NOPD policy requires that recordings be transcribed. In the Homicide Division, an administrative staff completes the transcriptions, but in the Districts, this responsibility falls upon the detectives. The policy requiring the transcription of all recordings provides a strong incentive for detectives to limit the length of the taped portion of interrogations, or to not tape interrogations at all. Retention of the audio and video recordings depends on the unit and the storage space available. In the Homicide Division, the original recording is processed into evidence, a copy is provided to the DA’s Office, and another copy is retained in the Division. In District 8, however, a lack of storage space prevents regular and systematic retention of the recorded video tapes in the District. Some Districts, and some rooms in the Homicide Division (due to equipment in disrepair), lack the capability to video record interrogations, further undermining good documentation and potentially impacting the decision whether to conduct an interrogation.
C. Allegations of Constitutional Violations
NOPD employs practices that could facilitate and hide constitutional violations of criminal suspects’ rights. We heard allegations that such violations do in fact occur, although we did not confirm them. According to well-regarded criminal defense attorneys, apparent constitutional violations frequently encountered in NOPD interrogations include: investigators waiting until incriminating statements are made before advising suspects of their Miranda Rights, rather than providing the rights at the start of the interrogation process; threats made during interrogations—most commonly against family members, such as threatening to “go to grandma’s house, knock down the door, and search for drugs,” or threats to women that they may lose their children to social services if they do not cooperate, or to spread a rumor in the suspect’s neighborhood that the suspect is a snitch; and questioning that continues even after the
- 112 -

suspect tells the interrogator that s/he does not want to talk anymore. Other allegations of improper interrogation tactics include promises of leniency, and, in juvenile cases, telling children, incorrectly, that their guardians have waived the suspect’s Miranda Rights, and that is all that is required.
XIV. COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT
The City of New Orleans and NOPD have a long history of community engagement, including efforts to provide effective civilian oversight of the Department. For decades, the City’s Office of Municipal Investigation served as an alternative to NOPD’s PIB, accepting and investigating individual complaints of misconduct against NOPD officers (and other City employees), before it was defunded in 2008 after years of concern about its viability and effectiveness. A thoughtful and comprehensive report in 2001 by the Police-Civilian Review Task Force, which was comprised of well-regarded and prominent community advocates as well as NOPD representatives, considered whether and what type of civilian oversight might be appropriate for NOPD. The Task Force determined that an Independent Monitor, who would review policies, procedures, complaint patterns, and the quality of complaint investigations, as well as make regular reports to elected officials, NOPD and the public, would “create the impetus and the focus for correcting problems,” “empower citizens with the information necessary to effect change,” and would in this way “increase the ability of citizens and the NOPD to identify, address, and correct problems, thereby improving the department and building citizen confidence and support.” Report of the Police-Civilian Review Task Force at 5. As noted in the Task Force report, this type of “quality control monitoring,” has been used in other communities and has had beneficial results. Id. at 6.
Nearly a decade after the Task Force’s recommendation, in August 2009, New Orleans created the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (“IPM”) as an independent, civilian police oversight agency. According to the IPM, its mission is to: improve cooperation and trust between the community and NOPD through objective review of police misconduct investigations; provide outreach to the New Orleans community; and make thoughtful policy recommendations to the NOPD and the City Council. The IPM lists as its specific responsibilities: ensuring that all concerns regarding police misconduct are classified and investigated at the appropriate level and that those investigations are fairly, timely and thoroughly handled, and making this information available to the public; carefully considering aggregate data from complaints, investigations, community concerns and public policy in crafting recommendations aimed toward improving the quality services of the NOPD; reaching out to inform the community about the complaint process and IPM activities; and listening and responding to broader community concerns. The IPM recently reached an agreement with NOPD to help ensure it has access to the information it needs to fulfill these responsibilities. Last year, the IPM volunteered to use its own funds to develop a new early warning system for NOPD, and is currently working with NOPD to implement this new system. We have met with the IPM’s Police Monitor several times and have been impressed with her dedication to building genuine reform and a constructive relationship with NOPD and the community.
In addition, with assistance from DOJ’s Community Relations Services, community leaders in New Orleans have contributed significant time and effort to develop a community
- 113 -

advisory board in conjunction with NOPD and the Mayor’s office. This board would serve as a sustainable mechanism for ongoing dialogue to understand and address concerns from the community as well as opportunities for the community and police department to work together to achieve common goals.
There are myriad types of civilian oversight and each is capable of improving policecommunity relations, preventing unconstitutional conduct, and helping to ensure a constructive response when such misconduct does occur. Because the type of oversight appropriate for any given community is circumstantial, deference should be given to the oversight mechanisms a community has chosen for itself. Regardless of the type of oversight chosen, it is critical that oversight mechanisms be sufficiently resourced and empowered. We have some concern regarding whether the IPM has sufficient resources to carry out its duties and it remains to see whether it will be given sufficient latitude in practice to be effective. While still in a nascent change, we are encouraged by the development of the community advisory board and hopeful that this will be an important bridge in communications between NOPD and parts of the community most concerned about police misconduct.
When combined with practices that ensure appropriate transparency in police department decisions related to misconduct and tactics, and with tools to measure, assess, and respond to changing community attitudes towards policing over time, civilian oversight can help create a powerful form of community engagement that will ensure that reforms are sustained over time, even after court-ordered oversight has ended.
- 114 -

XV. CONCLUSION The law governing officer conduct in many respects simply memorializes a basic code of
ethics: treat all individuals with dignity; treat people fairly regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or religion; use only the force necessary to uphold the law and protect others and yourself; and act with integrity, honesty and diligence in enforcing the law. The awesome authority we vest in law enforcement officers is contingent on adherence to these tenets.
Officers’ dual responsibility to enforce the law even as they strictly abide by this code thus requires the responsible exercise of considerable discretion. Too many officers at NOPD have chosen to exercise their discretion abusively or with little concern that their work effectively prevent crime. This has been unfair both to the many officers within the New Orleans Police Department that act with diligence and selflessness each day, as well as to the people of New Orleans these officers are sworn to serve. Until recently, City and Department leadership had largely acquiesced to wide-spread abuses by officers at all ranks.
The City of New Orleans took a critical step by choosing not to let the Police Department be defined by its past, and instead opening the operations of the Police Department for independent review and a public report. This decision has already benefited the people of New Orleans by allowing for a fuller understanding of the systemic problems within the Department and the extent of the resulting harm. This understanding serves as the foundation upon which to build a new Police Department that will prevent crime more effectively, serve all parts of the New Orleans’ community more fairly, respect the rights of all New Orleans’ residents, and better prepare and protect officers. Past reform efforts underscore the need for long-term commitment and meaningful community engagement to fundamentally and permanently transform the Department in this way. We look forward to working with the City, the Police Department and the broader New Orleans community to ensure that this effort is successful.
- 115 -

APPENDIX
Recommendations to the New Orleans Police Department
Use of Force
1. Develop, train on, and implement an integrated and comprehensive set of use of force policies that are consistent with best practices and current law. Policies should comprehensively address the use of force; alternatives to force; reporting force; and reviewing and investigating force. Policies should provide clear guidance to all NOPD members who use force and observe uses of force, as well as supervisors and commanders who review and investigate force. All force policies should guide officers on how to avoid even justifiable force where it is safe and effective to do so, through the use of de-escalation techniques and solid tactics. This integrated set of use of force policies should include a primary use of force policy, as well as secondary policies specifically guiding the use of each type of force NOPD officers are permitted to use, including but not limited to ECDs, impact weapons, canines, and firearms.
2. Ensure that use of force policies explain what approved weapons may be used for and provide clear guidance regarding the circumstances under which various types and levels of force may be appropriate, including the crime at issue; the subject’s level of resistance; the danger to the officer and others; the context of the force, including location, the size and apparent or known physical condition of the subject, and similar circumstances; and how the officer uses the weapon. An adequate force policy would thus, for example, state clearly that a baton is capable of inflicting lethal injuries, but may also be considered a lower level of force, depending on how it is used and the body part attacked. Whether this measured force policy is termed circular, quadrant, staircase, matrix, graduated, situational, or a continuum, it must provide clear guidance to officers regarding appropriate behavior, to better enable them to use force properly and to provide clear standards to which they may be held accountable.
3. Include input from high-level NOPD command representatives, as well as representatives from the Training Division, PIB, the City Attorney’s Office, and community representatives in the use of force policy development process.
4. Require officers to report all force above un-resisted handcuffing.
5. Establish stringent penalties for officers who use or observe force and fail to report it, regardless of whether the force appears to be reasonable.
6. Require all officers on the scene of a use of force to write a report documenting their actions and observations. The report should include: a detailed account of the incident from the officer’s perspective; the reason for the initial police presence; and a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force; the level of resistance encountered; and the force that was used.
- 1 -

7. Ensure that all force incidents are investigated by uninvolved superior officers. The investigator should determine: whether the subject’s actions precipitated the use of force; whether the officer’s use of force was proportionate to the subject’s actions or resistance; whether the injuries sustained by the subject are consistent with the amount of force claimed by the officer; and whether the officers’, witnesses’, and subject’s versions of events reasonably agree. Where they do not, the investigator should clearly describe the discrepancies and the evidence supporting different versions of events.
8. Require investigators to collect and document all evidence—including officer and witness statements, and physical evidence, including but not limited to audio and video recordings, photographs and other documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries— to establish material facts related to the use of force. If the supervisor cannot resolve a material discrepancy, elevate the investigation and require an immediate, on-site response by specialized force and/or misconduct investigators.
9. Develop processes to review all uses of force, with the level and type of review tailored to the type of force used, the type of injury, if any, resulting from the use of force, and the particular circumstances of the incident. For higher-level uses of force, including but not limited to officer-involved shootings, or where there is an in-custody death, develop and implement a process for more stringent criminal and administrative investigation and review. Convene interdisciplinary force or roll out “teams,” that include personnel specially trained in criminal and administrative force investigations, specially trained representatives of the Training Division, representatives of the City Attorney’s Office, and others as appropriate, to investigate such uses of force from a criminal and/or administrative perspective. Require these teams to determine not only whether the use of force was out of policy, but also whether it presented tactical, policy, training, or equipment concerns. Require a senior commander, as part of this team, to immediately respond to the scene of the incident and take command of the inquiry. This interdisciplinary group should report to a high level group of senior officers, sometimes called a use of force review “board,” that should review investigatory findings and make disciplinary, policy, training, tactical, and equipment recommendations to the Superintendent as appropriate.
10. Significantly increase mandatory recruit and in-service use of force training. Include tactical, legal, and ethical training in all types of force NOPD officers are permitted to use, as well as training in de-escalation and other techniques to avoid the use of force where it is safe and effective to do so.
11. Collect and maintain use of force data and analyze this data to identify trends and develop policy, training and operational recommendations. Consider all recommendations that result from this analysis and adopt them where appropriate. Document the decision not to adopt a recommendation and reason for the decision. At least annually, report to the public findings from analyzing the previous year use of force data and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes.
12. Develop, train on, and implement a policy on the use of canines that is comprehensive, legally sound, and consistent with best practices.
- 2 -

13. Significantly improve and increase mandatory training of canines and their handlers. Training content and frequency should be consistent with best practices. No handler or canine should be deployed unless the handler and canine are current on all training requirements and the canine is fully controllable during exercises.
14. Collect and maintain all records on canine training, deployment, apprehension, and bites. Analyze canine-related data to develop, consistent with best practices, training and operational recommendations for individual dogs, handlers, and the unit as a whole.
15. Establish procedures for auditing canine training, deployment, and administrative documentation, to be performed by an entity outside the Canine Unit.
16. Develop, train on, and implement a policy on the use of force by SOD, including clear guidance on what tactics are permissible for the service of each type of warrant, and when SOD or other units will be used to serve warrants and perform other police functions. This policy should be comprehensive, legally sound and consistent with best practices. SOD should not be deployed for routine police work.
17. Require SOD to document its activities in detail, including preparing plans and afteraction reports. Require review of SOD activities and deployments to identify any policy, training, or tactical concerns raised by the action.
18. Incorporate discussion of uses of force, including trends, arrest/force ratios, and outliers during weekly department-wide COMSTAT meetings.
19. Promptly input all force data into the early warning system. Develop and implement policy to ensure the early warning system functions as a source of real-time information that assists line supervisors and commanders in identifying officers in need of closer supervision or particular interventions.
20. Tailor interventions based on early warning system data to the specific problem presented, and monitor and refine the intervention as necessary until the problem is resolved. The early warning system should be used to identify use of force outliers, determining whether the aberration is meaningful and requires correction, and monitoring interventions to determine that any use of force problems have been resolved.
Stops, Searches, and Arrests
1. Institute mandatory and comprehensive Fourth Amendment training, at the Academy and annually, for all officers. The training should include lectures as well adult learning methods that incorporate role-playing scenarios, where officers then prepare written reports to gauge comprehension of law. Classes should be taught by a competent legal instructor with significant experience litigating Fourth Amendment issues.
2. Institute policies and procedures to collect data on and to review stops and arrests to identify problem areas and ensure high quality arrests, searches and seizures that result in prosecutable cases.
- 3 -

3. Include Districts’ conviction rates and disposition of important cases at COMSTAT meetings. Establish a formal system to coordinate with the DA’s Office for input regarding the quality of the arrests by NOPD and to make operational changes based upon this input.
4. Establish clear and comprehensive guidelines controlling the preparation, use and preservation of FICs. The policy should dictate when it is mandatory, rather than discretionary, for officers to prepare a FIC, and guide officers in the use of completed FIC information.
5. Revamp FICs to make them an analytically useful tool for both crime suppression and statistical analysis. The cards should include the suspected crime relevant to any Terry or probable cause stop. The cards should have a short narrative for the officer to list the facts that establish probable cause or articulable suspicion, and should include the length of time of the stop. They should also include a comments section for the officer to list any investigative findings.
6. Ensure that FIC information complies with all Federal and State privacy standards.
Discriminatory Policing on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT Status
1. Develop and implement policies that specifically and comprehensively address and prohibit discriminatory policing, including bias-based profiling. The policy should clearly outline the very limited, suspect-specific circumstances in which officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender, LGBT status, religion, or national origin in discharging their duties.
2. Provide coordinated training – academy, field, and in-service – that sends a clear, consistent and emphatic message that bias-based profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing are prohibited. Include instruction on data collection protocols, relevant legal and ethical standards, how to handle stops effectively, and diversity and cultural awareness. Provide training in how stereotypes and implicit bias may infect police work, making it less safe, less effective, alienating communities and violating the rights of individuals. Provide training to supervisors and commanders in how to detect and respond to bias-based profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing.
3. Begin collecting and analyzing data related to race and ethnicity of subjects of law enforcement actions, including: traffic stops; pedestrian stops; searches; arrests; and uses of force. Consider and implement operational changes based on this analysis. At least annually, report to the public findings from analyzing the previous year stop, search, and arrest data and the steps taken to correct problems and build on successes.
4. Capture and track complaints alleging racial and other bias-based profiling, along with characteristics of the complainants.
5. Develop and implement policies and protocols for responding to employees, units, assignments, or other components, that indicate a pattern of biased policing. Consider
- 4 -

complaints of bias-based profiling and other potential indicators of biased policing in the Department’s early warning system.
Services for Limited English Proficient Communities
1. Establish a language assistance plan and policy that outlines such critical functions as: determining the number of LEP individuals within NOPD’s jurisdiction; collecting and recording the number of LEP victims and witnesses who seek NOPD services; interrogating and interviewing LEP individuals; responding to and tracking citizen complaints filed by LEP individuals; identifying and training multilingual staff; and training all NOPD personnel on providing language assistance services to LEP individuals.
2. Communicate the language assistance plan and policy to police personnel, the City of New Orleans Human Relations Commission, and to the community, and provide training to personnel on the policies and the requirements of Title VI. The communication plan should include outreach to organizations representing LEP individuals.
3. Identify and translate official documents that are subject to public dissemination into Vietnamese and Spanish, at a minimum.
4. Prioritize recruitment of qualified bilingual personnel and provide incentives for assuming interpreter or translator duties for the Department.
Sexual Assault Investigations
1. Revise policies and procedures governing response to and investigation of sex crimes, including specific guidelines covering: the respective duties of patrol, investigators, and supervisors; initial and follow-up victim interview protocol; collaboration with victim advocates; protocols for forensic examinations of victims; suspect interviews and forensic examinations; evidence preservation and crime scene management in the sexual assault context; and services/assistance to be offered to victims.
2. Require training for sex crimes detectives in topics including: overcoming the perceptions of false/unfounded allegations to successfully investigate non-stranger sexual assault; drug and alcohol facilitated sexual assault; victim interviewing skills; realistic dynamics of sexual assault; victim impact; report-writing; and discovery.
3. Require training for patrol/unformed officers with a focus on the dynamics of sexual assault; report writing, victim interviewing, and initial assessment of victim and crime scene.
4. Incorporate the recommendations of the National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations (Adult / Adolescents), and other recognized criminal justice model policies, procedures, and training in the development and implementation of policies and procedures.
- 5 -

5. Require patrol/uniformed officers to document calls for service involving sexual assaults, including their own observations and all actions taken, and any statements of victims, witnesses, and reporting persons.
6. Implement more thorough and regular systems to audit and ensure accountability in the classification and reporting of sex crimes. The decision to code a report as a miscellaneous complaint should be submitted to a supervisor for close secondary review.
7. Develop an understanding of the language and best policies regarding the definitions of “unfounded,” “false,” and “baseless” in the context of sexual assault. Track these different types of conclusions separately so that the agency can easily report them.
8. Separately track and account for all felony sexual assaults, including those offenses not included in UCR counts, e.g., Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assaults involving persons with disabilities unable to consent, sodomy, and male victims of sexual assault. Collect data on the final disposition of investigations, including whether the DA charged the suspect, and if so, whether the case was eventually dismissed, pled, or tried, and the final outcome.
9. In non-stranger sexual assault cases, where there is no belief that the suspect presents a danger to the victim or the community, may flee the jurisdiction of the court or destroy evidence, NOPD should consider delaying arrest so that the investigation can fully support prosecution. Such delay, when circumstances warrant, permits detectives to build a detailed and complete investigation. The Department should educate advocates and the public that this is a best practice for ensuring that police provide prosecutors with thorough and professional investigations.
Domestic Violence Investigations
1. Revise policies and procedures to include specific guidance for initial and investigative response to domestic violence, including: 911 dispatch procedures; initial entry and preliminary investigation of scenes; identifying and documenting victim injuries; referral of all victims to the NOFJC; and procedures for follow-up investigations.
2. Implement the law enforcement “Integrated Protocol” developed by the NOFJC, and review and update protocols regularly. Continue collaboration with community providers to ensure that policies and protocols remain victim-centered and effective.
3. Assign sufficient staff to the Domestic Violence Unit at the NOFJC to permit detectives to conduct appropriate follow-up investigation, including field work and coordination with the DA’s Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit.
4. Provide mandatory training to officers and detectives responding to reports of domestic violence. Specific training on identifying the primary aggressor in mutual combat situations, interviewing witnesses and suspects, and responding to and investigating strangulation in the context of domestic violence is strongly urged.
- 6 -

5. Track dispositions of domestic violence investigations. Such tracking should not stop at the point of an arrest, but should include information on whether the DA charged the suspect, and if so, if the case was eventually dismissed, pled, or tried, and the final outcome.
Recruitment
1. Refocus the Recruitment Unit on the primary goal of recruitment of high quality applicants who share the Department’s values and can help it achieve its mission.
2. Remove the background investigation function from the Recruitment Unit. Place the Unit under the direct supervision of a Deputy Superintendent or similar level of management to ensure accountability.
3. Task the Recruitment Unit with developing a plan for recruitment that will identify the skills and abilities NOPD needs, including, for example, the ability to think strategically, complex cognitive problem solving skills, interpersonal communication skills, capacity to use technology, emotional maturity, and the ability to collaborate with a diverse crosssection of the community.
4. Develop clear and understandable goals for the Recruitment Unit that require maintaining detailed records and reporting of its activities. Establish scheduled reviews of the Recruitment Unit and its personnel to ensure productivity.
5. Staff the Recruitment Unit with full-time recruiters, as well as part-time recruiters who can be temporarily reassigned from elsewhere in the Department. Establish job-related qualifications for members of the Recruitment Unit, and make Department-wide announcements for openings in the Unit to ensure qualified Unit members.
6. Provide Recruitment Unit members with specific training for recruiting a qualified and diverse work force, including training on employment and discrimination law.
7. Establish significant and sustained relationships with various institutions and community organizations that can serve as the source of qualified and diverse applicants.
8. In conjunction with the Civil Service Commission, develop a recruitment process and testing procedure that addresses barriers for out of town applicants. This process should permit initial testing, i.e. civil service exam, agility test, and psychological tests, to take place at the recruitment site.
9. Explore and implement measures to better attract and reward individuals with fluency in languages other than English.
Training
1. Establish an executive training education task force to advise the Superintendent and identify global training priorities and broad training goals. Include both law enforcement officials and community representatives as members.
- 7 -

2. Consider establishing a public safety training consortium to provide expertise in creating training strategy, course topics, curriculum development, classroom/facility use, and instructor-development.
3. Ensure that training priorities and goals reflect and incorporate NOPD’s commitment to transforming the Department and incorporating community/problem-oriented policing into all aspects of policing.
4. Make the Training Division the central coordination point for all NOPD training, including but not limited to recruit, in-service, use of force (firearms), roll call, leadership, special mission unit, and elective training. The Training Division should also be responsible for tracking, maintaining, and reporting detailed, real-time training records and statistics.
5. Develop an electronic database to create and maintain records for each recruit and each sworn and unsworn member of the Department, including a standard electronic training record and electronic copies of certificates and other materials.
6. Create a full-time Department-Wide Training Liaison position within the Training Division, to coordinate training activities with designated liaisons in every police district and organizational unit.
7. Establish a formal training curriculum development process that incorporates command staff input, recent research, subject matter expertise, and City Attorney review. Require a full-time, specially-trained Curriculum Developer to formalize all curriculum development for the Department. Develop written curricula for every training topic.
8. Increase the number of hours allotted for training in priority subject matter areas, including use of force; the exclusionary rule; and weapons recertification.
9. Establish eligibility criteria for all staff assigned to the Training Division, and conduct regular (at least annual) reviews of Training Division staff and adjunct instructors to ensure that they meet the delineated criteria.
11. Provide tailored annual training to Training Division staff and adjunct instructors, including training on effective teaching, adult-learning techniques, and curriculum development.
12. Consider designating a large enclosed climate-controlled area for physical training activities, such as defense tactics, ground fighting techniques, and baton requalification, as well as CPR recertification. Provide ready access to a safe, modern, firing range to ensure sworn officers receive appropriate firearms training.
13. Maintain recruit class sizes of no more than 25-30 candidates per class. Hire candidates on a rolling basis and place them in non-sworn support roles until the desired class size is attained.
- 8 -

14. Require the Training Division to develop a Field Training Program Manual that describes the policies and procedures for the field training program.
15. Establish eligibility criteria for Field Training Officers and Field Training Sergeants, and conduct regular (at least annual) reviews of FTOs and Field Training Sergeants to ensure that they meet the delineated criteria. Give the Training Division authority to remove any FTO or sergeant from the program.
16. Provide a tailored annual field training officer/sergeant curriculum.
17. Create a mechanism to actively elicit feedback from recruits regarding the quality of their field training, including the extent to which their field training was consistent with what they learned in the Academy.
18. Establish a mandatory annual in-service training program of at least 40 hours. Identify critical in-service training topic areas based on analysis of officer safety issues, input from members at all levels of the Department, input from members of the community, community complaints, use-of-force statistics, internal affairs statistics, court decisions, and research reflecting the latest law enforcement trends.
19. Create tailored training tracks for command staff (captains and above); lieutenants and sergeants; detectives; narcotics and gang investigators; special mission units (SWAT, Task Force, Drug Enforcement, etc); and FTOs. Create a customized 40-hour training program for new promotees to all ranks, and develop upper-level managers and executives by supporting participation in executive development programs.
20. Strategically plan a daily roll call schedule consisting of brief training sessions conducted by the roll call sergeant at the beginning of each tour of duty.
Supervision
1. Develop and implement policies for supervision that set out clear requirements for supervisors and are consistent with best practices regarding span of control and unity of command.
2. Develop and implement supervisory training of no fewer than 40 hours that each supervisor must complete before becoming a supervisor. This mandatory training should include: training in how to effectively direct and guide officers; legal standards and requirements; building community partnerships as a supervisor; reviewing officer uses of force; conducting investigations of complaints of misconduct; how to use supervisory tools such as an early warning system, audio and video recording, and AVL.
3. Develop and implement an annual in-service training program for supervisors of no fewer than 40 hours and provides all necessary updates and refreshers, as well as training in new skills.
4. Ensure adequate allocation of field supervisors so that field supervisors work the same days and schedules as their subordinates and can directly supervise them by responding
- 9 -

to the scene, reviewing their reports, investigating their uses of force, responding to complaints of misconduct; and providing counseling, redirection, and support as appropriate.
5. Consider whether some clerical duties currently assigned to supervisors should instead be assigned to civilian or non-supervisory staff.
6. Ensure that the early warning system can be used as a supervisory tool. Provide the policy, training, and administrative support to ensure that the early warning system is maintained and the information included in it is accurate and timely, and that supervisors know how to use it and are required to do so.
7. Ensure that COMSTAT includes regular consideration and analysis of integrity-related data and the quality of arrests and train supervisors on how to use this information to provide more effective supervision and direction to their officers.
8. Implement and maintain appropriate technology to assist officer supervision and accountability, including video and audio recorders and similar devices.
9. Hold supervisors accountable for the quality and completeness of their supervision, including their review of officers’ reports and uses of force. Supervisory performance should be assessed in part on the productivity of their subordinates as well as their response to complaints received concerning their subordinates.
Paid Details
1. Immediately remake the Paid Detail system. In its place, create a single office that arranges, coordinates and monitors all officers’ outside law enforcement employment.
2. Underscore that the ability to work Details is a privilege.
3. Increase officer accountability and oversight of the Detail system.
4. Prohibit officers from soliciting Detail opportunities.
5. Establish a system with appropriately stringent criteria that will fairly assign officers to work Details.
6. Set Detail pay uniformly according to rank and include a reasonable fee that goes to the City to cover the expenses of the outside employment office, workers compensation, fuel, use of equipment, and any other actual or potential costs to the City.
Performance Evaluations and Promotions
1. With the City and its Civil Service Commission, determine the usefulness of applying the current City-wide performance evaluation system to the Police Department, and revise the current system or develop and implement a new one.
- 10 -

2. Develop and implement an NOPD-specific, comprehensive system of evaluating employee performance. This system should recognize that ethical and effective policing are intertwined and assess both, and should assess employees’ productivity not only by stops, citations, and arrests, but also by employees’ success at preventing crime, building strong, prosecutable cases, and fostering productive community relationships. Performance evaluations should be integrated into ongoing supervision and should be documented.
3. Ensure that all supervisors are trained in and held accountable for completing timely and ongoing performance evaluations of every subordinate. Where an employee reports to more than one supervisor, or has had more than one supervisor during the rating period, all supervisors should provide written input regarding the employee’s performance while under their supervision.
4. In conjunction with the City and Civil Service Commission, make NOPD’s promotions process more fair, transparent, and flexible, allowing for promotions of NOPD’s most effective and ethical officers.
5. Develop and implement promotional criteria and assessment tools to ensure that unqualified individuals are not promoted. Ensure that NOPD promotional selection criteria communicate NOPD’s values and mission, and result in the promotion of officers who most closely adhere to these values and are capable of carrying out NOPD’s mission. Require assessment of officers’ community policing and problem solving efforts and abilities, as well as officers’ professionalism, ethics, and integrity, as part of the promotions selection process. Officers with a disciplinary history that does not comport with the behavior NOPD wants to model for other officers and the community should be disqualified from promotion.
6. Advertise promotion opportunities widely. Give promotion exams for every position at least every 18 months, and recommend for promotion only the number of candidates for which there appear to be likely vacancies during the period before the next promotional exam.
7. Train all members and employees on performance evaluation and promotions policies that incorporate these recommendations.
Misconduct Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication
1. Revise and update all policies related to the intake, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct complaints, including policies guiding complaint intake and investigation by officers, field supervisors, and PIB staff. Create protocols and directives for use by field and PIB investigators to improve investigative quality, thoroughness and consistency.
2. Revise policy so that complaint classification is allegation-driven rather than outcomedriven, and so that all allegations of misconduct against NOPD officers are investigated and given a formal disposition of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. The level of investigation should be tailored to the requirements of the case.
- 11 -

3. Revise policy to ensure that allegations of misconduct related to arrests and discriminatory policing are investigated and specifically tracked.
4. Provide significant and ongoing training to PIB investigators and managers, as well as to field investigators and their supervisors, including ICOs, in receiving, investigating, and reviewing misconduct investigations. Train all officers in how to properly handle complaint intake, including strategies for turning complaints into positive police-civilian interactions, and the consequences for failing to take complaints.
5. Clarify officer and investigator responsibilities related to misconduct complaint intake and investigation and hold all investigators and officers responsible for adhering to these directives.
6. Staff PIB with sufficient trained staff to complete thorough and timely investigations within the timeframes mandated by law. Create a PIB selection process that ensures that only officers with excellent investigative skills and who can fairly hold officers accountable become PIB investigators.
7. Restructure the ICO position to allow ICOs to act more effectively as a liaison between the districts and PIB and as genuine accountability liaisons. Hold supervisors and commanders responsible for preventing, detecting, and responding to misconduct.
8. Ensure that allegations of misconduct made in civil and criminal lawsuits are identified and promptly investigated by the Department. Establish a system to identify and investigate cases that are dropped for lack of probable cause, or instances where officers may have violated the law or policy, as identified by the DA’s Office, the Courts, the PD’s Office, or federal agents or attorneys working with NOPD.
9. Implement systems to monitor and ensure that all allegations in a complaint are captured and investigated and that investigative reports accurately reflect the content of subject and witness interviews. Ensure that PIB and other NOPD managers thoroughly review misconduct investigations, signing off only on those in which all material evidence has been gathered, and in which all findings supported by a preponderance of that evidence.
10. Work with the State to modify the state law requiring that administrative misconduct investigations be completed within 60 days to allow for certain exceptions, such as where the alleged misconduct involves numerous officers or is particularly complex, or where evidence is newly discovered well into the investigation.
11. Consider having higher level commanders, rather than investigators, make investigative findings.
12. Update the Department’s penalty schedule and enact policies to ensure its proper use (e.g. requiring that all deviations outside the prescribed range are documented in writing, and that exceptions to the stated range do not become the rule). Revise the disciplinary hearing structure to ensure consistency and integrity.
- 12 -

13. Improve training for PIB investigators and commanders on New Orleans’ civil service system requirements related to the imposition of discipline.
14. Document and explain the rationale for all disciplinary decisions. To ensure transparency in the system and ensure that decisions can withstand scrutiny, implement a requirement that all disciplinary decisions be within the range set out in the penalty schedule unless there is a justified and documented rationale for going outside the range.
15. The Civil Service Commission should post all its decisions in full, online, and in a timely manner.
16. Document the reasons for every decision to reverse an investigative finding as well as the reasons for accepting or changing any disciplinary recommendation.
17. The City Attorney’s Office, which should play a larger advisory role at every stage of the investigative process, should in particular provide close guidance at the disciplinary stage to ensure that NOPD’s disciplinary decisions are as fair and legally defensible as possible.
18. Implement a system to allow for the investigation of misconduct and imposition of administrative discipline prior to completion of criminal or civil suits against the officer. Enhance policies, protocols, and training to ensure bifurcation of criminal and administrative investigations. Develop protocol for referring allegations of criminal misconduct to an outside agency where appropriate.
19. Provide written guidance and training to ensure that investigators identify, seek advice, and refer where appropriate, allegations of criminal conduct.
20. The DA’s Office should continue and expand its efforts to work with NOPD to ensure that criminal investigations are fair and thorough, and that officers who commit crimes are held accountable.
Community Policing
1. Articulate, internally as well as externally, that the Department is adopting Community Policing as a philosophy, not as a series of projects or programs. Ensure that the community policing philosophy is reflected in the Department’ mission statement and set of cores values.
2. Build the Community Policing philosophy into all aspects of the Department’s operations, including policies and operating procedures, performance evaluations, incentives, recruitment, training, and promotional criteria.
3. Review and reassess staffing allocation and personnel deployment to ensure that they support community policing and problem-solving goals.
4. Implement a mandatory and robust training on community policing and problem-oriented policing methods, including training on contemporary approaches for all officers, to
- 13 -

include supervisors, managers and executives. This training should focus on practical skills and ideally include a practicum out in the community.
5. Require in-service training on skills that enhance the officer’s ability to engage successfully in community policing, to include leadership, ethics, interpersonal skills, community engagement, crime prevention, conflict resolution, verbal de-escalation of conflict, and cultural awareness training. Train officers on how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations, including building trust with special population groups such as immigrant communities and LGBT communities.
6. As part of the effort to rebuild credibility in the community, encourage officer outreach to a broad cross-section of community stakeholders to establish extensive problem-solving partnerships and develop cooperative strategies that build mutual respect and trusting relationships. Create a comprehensive community policing plan with community input that collaboratively identifies and implements strategies to address crime and safety problems. Consider programs such as citizen academies in languages other than English.
7. Develop measurements to assess the effectiveness of the three tenets of community policing—partnerships, problem-solving and organizational transformation.
8. Review and evaluate alternative COMSTAT models, with a focus on using COMSTAT to hold command staff and supervisors accountable for implementing communitypolicing strategies. Develop skills, knowledge and abilities for the analyst function to enhance mapping techniques, such as predatory mapping and predictive policing to support COMSTAT and community policing efforts.
9. Provide data and information to the public in a transparent and public-friendly format to the greatest extent allowable by law. Revise the website to be user-friendly and provide more transparent data on the website from the community perspective, and in multiple language formats.
10. Consider working with members of racial, ethnic, and language minorities, immigrant communities, and the LGBT communities to develop a mechanism that would allow for regular communication and cooperation between the Department, the City, and community leaders, such as through the development of a community advisory panel.
Officer Assistance and Support
1. Design and implement a comprehensive range of mental health services for NOPD professionals through a centralized and adequately-staffed office. The range of mental health services should include: readily accessible confidential counseling services with both direct and indirect referrals; critical incident debriefings and crisis counseling; and stress management training.
2. Provide the infrastructure for a peer counseling program (possibly in conjunction with neighboring jurisdictions), and incorporate mental health services into an overall department-wide health and wellness program. To this end, consider establishing a fitness center where such wellness programs and trainings could be offered, and
- 14 -

mandating an annual physical exam for officers where wellness issues can be addressed and discussed on an individual basis with medical professionals.
3. Use mental health professionals to enhance training of NOPD officers on avoiding excessive force. Topics that mental health professionals can address in such training should include: cultural sensitivity and diversity; intervention by fellow officers to stop the use of excessive force; the interaction of human perception and threat assessment; decision making under highly charged conditions; psychological methods of situation control; patrol de-escalation and defusing techniques that not only provide a tactical response, but also respond to the fear stimulated by confrontations; anger management programs that use self-assessment and self-management techniques for providing individual feedback to officers on how variable levels of legitimate anger influence judgment; and training in verbal control and communication, including conflict resolution. Provide academy and in-service training on mental health stressors related to law enforcement and the mental health services available to officers and their families.
4. Ensure that mental health services to NOPD officers and their families are incorporated into any crisis response and emergency preparedness planning and actual response.
Interrogations
1. Revise interrogation policies to include discussion of legal standards and safeguards, as well as express prohibitions on certain interrogation methods.
2. Revise interrogation policies to provide specific guidance on documentation of the interrogation process and discovery obligations of DA’s Office.
3. Revise and update interview and interrogation training for recruits.
4. Formalize training for newly assigned detectives on interrogation procedures and methods. Include legal standards, ethics, and causes for investigative failures and false confessions in all interview and interrogations training.
5. Require video recording of all phases of interviews and interrogations.
6. Require that detectives maintain their notes taken during interviews and interrogations and provide copies of the notes in the case file to the DA’s Office.
7. Revise selection standards for detectives in Districts and specialized units, requiring an appropriate tenure on the job, writing samples, supervisor recommendations, and an interview for qualification.
8. Enlarge the applicant pool for detectives by posting all detective openings throughout the Department.
9. Provide regular training to all detectives on changes to the law regarding interrogations and confessions. Consider providing this training in partnership with the DA’s Office and/or USAO.
- 15 -

10. Designate interview rooms for all Districts and specialized units. Equip all interview rooms with audio and video recording technology.
Community Oversight 1. Work with the City and the City Council to ensure that the Office of the Independent
Police Monitor possesses the authority and staffing necessary to fulfill its mission, and to further build upon this mission to ensure that the IPM is a truly independent, effective, and sustainable mechanism for police accountability. 2. Work with a variety of community groups and individuals to develop additional mechanisms to ensure representative, active, and constructive community engagement in NOPD crime prevention and accountability efforts. 3. Develop and implement mechanisms to ensure that NOPD data and decision making is as transparent as possible, including meaningful analysis and reporting of accountability and integrity related data and decisions. 4. Develop and implement mechanisms, such as recurring community surveys, to assess recent experiences and current attitudes about NOPD among all communities throughout the City, and changes in these experiences and attitudes over time.
- 16 -

 
 u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530
March 16,2011

The Honorable Mitchell J. Landrieu Office of the Mayor Suite 2E04, 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70112
Re: Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department, 
 New Orleans, Louisiana 

Dear Mayor Landrieu:
We are writing to report the findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42U.S.C. § 14141, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d. These laws give the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") authority to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy patterns or practices of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprive individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. These laws also give DOJ the authority to seek the withdrawal of federal funding from police departments that discriminate on the basis ofrace, color, religion, sex or national ongm.
On May 5, 2010, you requested that DOJ assist the City in bringing about the "complete transformation" of NOPD. On May 17,2010, the Civil Rights Division notified the City of its intent to investigate NOPD pursuant to the above referenced statutes. Our investigation has been thorough, wide ranging, and independent. We have conducted a top to bottom review of the Department, and have examined a wide range of policies, practices, and issues. Civil pattern or practice investigations have a different focus and legal standard from criminal investigations and our investigation was kept separate from ongoing federal criminal prosecutions ofNOPD officers. During this investigation, in addition to retaining police practices experts specifically for this project, we have consulted with experts within the Department of Justice, including the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Access to Justice Initiative. This outside expertise alongside ongoing collaboration with various components within the Department has enabled us to provide technical assistance to NOPD, and to diagnose the systemic problems with great precision.

We received the complete cooperation of the City and the Police Department during the course of our investigation. In addition, we could not have completed our investigation without the contributions of the many community members and groups who met with us on weekends and on evenings until late into the night to ensure that we had as full a picture of New Orleans and its Police Department as possible. The Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice facilitated many of these meetings, further enabling community members to voice their concerns and proposals.
We also appreciate the involvement of rank and file police officers and the police union. They clearly want to be a part of a world class police force, and recognize that the misdeeds of some officers have shaken public confidence in NOPD. We appreciate the constructive observations and suggestions of the many officers with whom we met.
Throughout our investigation, Superintendent Ronal Serpas has been working to improve policing in New Orleans to make it more effective and accountable. We find that City and. NOPD leadership understand that smart, constitutional policing is directly tied to crime prevention and the restoration of public confidence in NOPD. The City and Department recognize that they must provide officers with the policies, training, supervision, and facilities necessary to consistently police with effectiveness, integrity and professionalism-and hold officers accountable when they do not. During the course of our investigation, we have provided real time feedback to Superintendant Serpas. He has been receptive to our observations and suggestions, and has already implemented a number of reforms that are important components of the transformation of NOPD.
City and Department leadership, as well as others in NOPD, have also acknowledged that for NOPD's policing efforts to be successful, all segments of New Orleans' racially, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse community must feel they are in partnership with the police in keeping their neighborhoods safe. Achieving this culture shift will require the Department to engage and protect all of the City's communities, to treat them with dignity, and to work diligently to prevent and solve the problems that cause crime in their neighborhoods. This fundamental reform will require the collaborative efforts of the entire criminal justice system, including the District Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, Courts, Sheriffs Department and Juvenile Justice System. We are hopeful that the findings and recommendations in this letter will assist this critically important effort.
The challenges confronting the New Orleans Police Department are serious, systemic, wide-ranging, and deeply rooted. We find reasonable cause to believe that there are the' following patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law:
• Use of excessive force; • Unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests; • Biased policing:
2 


o Racial, ethnic and LGBT discrimination; o National origin discrimination-systemic failure to provide effective policing
services to persons with limited English proficiency; and o Gender-biased policing-systemic failure to investigate sexual assaults and
domestic violence.
We find further that a number oflong-standing and entrenched practices within NOPD cause or contribute to the patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct that we observed. These practices include:
• Failed systems for officer recruitment, promotion and evaluation; • Inadequate training; • Inadequate supervision; • Ineffective systems of complaint intake, investigation and adjudication; • A failed Paid Detail system; • Failure to engage in community oriented policing; • Inadequate officer assistance and support services; and • Lack of sufficient community oversight.
In order tO,achieve your objective ofthe "complete transformation" ofNOPD, it is imperative to identify, understand and address both the aforementioned constitutional and legal violations, and the practices that have caused or contributed to the violations. For instance, generally, failures of front line supervision, and the absence of effective internal mechanisms of accountability, are major contributing factors to the unconstitutional patterns or practices that we observed. In addition, the Paid Detail system, as currently structured, is deeply flawed. All too frequently NOPD's Detail system invites corruption and malfeasance, and fosters unconstitutional conduct. It will be impossible to transform the culture ofNOPD in a sustainable fashion unless the Detail system is dramatically reformed. Similarly, NOPD's overemphasis on quantity of arrests and field contacts, rather than quality of encounters and arrests, creates perverse incentives to violate the Constitution.
As devastating as Hurricane Katrina was, our investigation has revealed that these serious deficiencies existed long before the storm. Despite the Department's prior and recent efforts to implement reform, our investigative findings, which focused on officer conduct during the past two years, indicate that problems persist and sustainable reform will require a substantial period of significant and difficult work. We provide recommendations not only to improve the relationship between NOPD and the broader New Orleans community, but also to ensure that the City and NOPD give their officers the support they need to be safer and more effective each day.
While our investigation focused on identifying the existence and extent of any patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct within NOPD, and the causes behind those patterns or practices, we sought also to address your request that w~ help the Department "determine how to prevent, detect, and discipline misconduct as well as introduce best practices for public safety." Our recommendations respond to this request and take into account practices that other agencies find effective-best practices-as well as the unique circumstances of New Orleans and NOPD.
3 


We look forward to meeting with you, your staff and the leadership ofNOPD to explain our findings and answer any questions that you may have. We intend to make this Report available to all interested parties, and we will continue our extensive public outreach so that all stakeholders have an opportunity to offer their reactions to our findings and recommendations for moving forward. We will continue to work collaboratively with you to use these findings as the foundation for the development of a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform that will reduce crime; ensure respect for the Constitution and the rule of law; and restore public confidence in NOPD.
We know from previous reform efforts that this blueprint must include court-ordered, independent oversight to ensure that necessary reforms are implemented and sustained. We are confident that we can negotiate the terms of a consent decree that will incorporate the essential elements of this blueprint for sustainable reform, and provide a critical accountability tool for the Department and the public.
While the challenges confronting NOPD are significant, we observed a dynamic in New Orleans that is a source of hope and optimism moving forward: Residents of New Orleans have 'a remarkably strong shared commitment to the City that spans race, class, and neighborhood. Community members and officers alike expressed a profound pride in New Orleans and a determination to build on its many strengths and make it better. This mutual dedication to New Orleans is not in itself sufficient: resources, cooperation, a dedication to principle, a comprehensive plan, and sheer hard work are equally important. But this shared commitment to the City provides a strong foundatio~upon which to transform NOPD.
We look forward to working with you and the New Orleans community over the coming weeks and months to develop a comprehensive, sustainable plan to address our [mdings and to seek ways to reduce crime, ensure constitutional policing, and increase the community's confidence in the New Orleans Police Department.
CL·Sincerely,

cc: Superintendent Ronal Serpas, New Orleans Police Department

Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General

4 


 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−01924−SM−DPC

United States of America v. New Orleans City Assigned to: Judge Susie Morgan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault Case in other court: USCA, 5th Circuit, 12−30972
USCA, 5th Circuit, 13−30161 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Jude Volek U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Email: Jude.Volek@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan Lee U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division− EOS) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 4300 Patrick Henry Building Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 Email: bryan.lee@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christy E. Lopez U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division− EOS) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 4300 Patrick Henry Building Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 Email: christy.lopez@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corey M. Sanders U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division− EOS) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 4300 Patrick Henry Building Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/20/2015

Emily Anna Gunston U. S. Department of Justice (Special Litigation Section) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3203 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: emily.gunston@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James B. Letten Butler Snow, LLP (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−299−7700 Email: jim.letten@butlersnow.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2014
Jennifer L. Mondino Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3176 Email: jennifer.mondino@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan M. Smith U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 TERMINATED: 04/20/2015
Kenneth A Polite Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Philadelphia) 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103−2921 215−963−5411 Email: kenneth.polite@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan R Marks DOJ−Crt Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−616−2579 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: megan.marks@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Killebrew U. S. Department of Justice (601 D) 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20004 202−305−3239 Fax: 202−514−6273 Email: paul.killebrew@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Puneet Cheema U. S. Department of Justice (950 Penn Ave) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202−353−7725 Email: Puneet.Cheema2@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant New Orleans City

R. Jonas Geissler U. S. Department of Justice (950 Penn Ave) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−8866 Email: jonas.geissler@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy L Austin , Jr U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3845 Fax: 202−514−0293 Email: roy.austin@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/20/2015
Stephen C Parker U. S. Attorney's Office (Memphis) 167 N. Main Street, Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−544−4231 Fax: 901−544−4230 Email: steve.parker@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/20/2014
Theodore R. Carter , III U. S. Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 650 Poydras St. Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−680−3165 Email: usalae.ecfcr@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E. Perez U. S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division− EOS) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 4300 Patrick Henry Building Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4883 TERMINATED: 04/20/2015
represented by Rebecca H. Dietz City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9816 Email: rhdietz@nola.gov TERMINATED: 05/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sharonda R. Williams Fishman Haygood, LLP (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4600, 46th Floor

New Orleans, LA 70170−4600 504−556−5506 Email: swilliams@fishmanhaygood.com TERMINATED: 12/03/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY
Sunni Jones LeBeouf City of New Orleans 1300 Perdido Street Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9920 Email: sunni.lebeouf@nola.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian J. Capitelli Capitelli & Wicker Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2950 New Orleans, LA 70163 504−582−2425 Email: brian@capitelliandwicker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Byron R. Arthur Arthur Law Firm, LLC 2109 N. Turnbull Drive Metairie, LA 70001 504−312−9835 Fax: 5042659485 Email: concord7710@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cherrell Simms Taplin Liskow & Lewis (New Orleans) One Shell Square 701 Poydras St. Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139−5099 504−556−4025 Email: cstaplin@liskow.com TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
Christy C. Harowski City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street Suite 7E05 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9854 Email: ccharowski@nola.gov TERMINATED: 05/30/2018
Churita H. Hansell City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9850 Email: chhansell@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donesia Diane Turner City of New Orleans Law Deptment

1300 Perdido Street Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9800 Email: donesia.turner@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica N. Beck Law Offices of Sidney D. Torres, III APLC Torres Park Plaza 8301 W. Judge Perez Dr. Suite 303 Chalmette, LA 70043 504−271−8421 Email: ebeck@torres−law.com TERMINATED: 05/16/2013
Erica A. Therio New Orleans City Attorney's Office 1300 Perdido Street City Hall − Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9800 Email: erica.therio@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Katherine Kaufman U. S. Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 650 Poydras St. Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504)680−3000 Email: mary.katherine.kaufman@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Lindsay Matthew Lindsay, Attorney at Law 601 Poydras Street Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−523−2500 Fax: 504−523−2500 Email: mlindsay@jonesswanson.com TERMINATED: 05/01/2013
Ralph Capitelli Capitelli & Wicker Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2950 New Orleans, LA 70163 (504) 582−2425 Email: rc@capitelliandwicker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Felipe Cortizas Jones Walker (New Orleans) Place St. Charles 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 5100 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−582−8222 Email: rfcortizas@nola.gov TERMINATED: 05/16/2013

Movant Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated
Movant Walter Powers, Jr.
Movant Community United for Change TERMINATED: 08/31/2012
Movant Police Association of New Orleans

represented by Chester Theodore Alpaugh , III Guste, Barnett, Schlesinger, Henderson & Alpaugh 639 Loyola Ave. Suite 2130 New Orleans, LA 70113−7103 504−529−4141 Fax: 504−561−0326 Email: cta@gustebarnett.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claude A. Schlesinger Guste, Barnett, Schlesinger, Henderson & Alpaugh 639 Loyola Ave. Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70113−7103 (504) 529−4141 Email: cas@gustebarnett.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chester Theodore Alpaugh , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claude A. Schlesinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Patrick Quigley Loyola New Orleans College of Law 7214 St. Charles Ave., Box 902 540 Broadway New Orleans, LA 70118 504−710−3074 Email: quigley77@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Davida Finger Loyola Law School Clinic 7214 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70118 504−861−5596 Email: dfinger@loyno.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric John Hessler Eric J. Hessler, Attorney at Law 2802 Tulane Ave Suite 102 New Orleans, LA 70119 504−301−9913 Email: hessler.law@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Michael Glasser individually and as President of the Police Association of New Orleans, Inc. Movant Office of the Independent Police Monitor
Movant Susan Hutson individually and in her official capacity as the Independent Police Monitor for the City of New Orleans
Movant Gary Juengain TERMINATED: 11/14/2019

represented by Eric John Hessler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John S. Williams Law Offices of John S. Williams, LLC 4164 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504−486−0300 Fax: 5047547671 Email: jwilliams@jswlawoffices.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darius Charney Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212−614−6464 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Vincent Warren Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212−614−6464 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John S. Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darius Charney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
E. Vincent Warren (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/24/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against New Orleans City filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(clm, ) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012 07/26/2012 07/26/2012 07/26/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012
08/03/2012 08/06/2012
08/07/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012

2 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Decree by New Orleans City, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree)(clm, ) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
3 ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/26/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/25/12.(cbn) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
4 ORDER: Status Conference reset for 12:00 p.m. on 7/26/2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) Modified on 7/26/2012 to edit text (cbn). (Entered: 07/26/2012)
5 Minute Entry: Stat conf held before Judge Susie Morgan on 7/26/12. The proposed consent decree and procedures to be followed as part of the Court's consideration of the consent decree were discussed. (cbn) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
6 ORDER: Phone Status Conference set for 8/3/2012 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
7 ORDER: any person wishing to seek intervention in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 shall file a contradictory motion to intervene no later than 8/7/12 at 11:59 p.m. Any party opposing any motion(s) to intervene shall file an opposition to the motion(s) no later than 8/14/12 at 11:59 p.m. A Hearing is set for 8/29/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan for consideration of the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. A notice of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A shall be published by counsel for the parties in The Times Picayune on Sunday, 8/12/12 and Sunday, 8/19/12. Any person wishing to comment upon the proposed Consent Decree shall do so by filing a written submission, not to exceed 20 pages in length, with the Clerk of this Court no later than 8/24/12 at 4:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(cbn) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
8 Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 8/3/2012. The parties discussed the process to be used for obtaining proposals for a monitor for the proposed Consent Decree. A further telephone Status Conference will be held on 8/8/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
9 MOTION to Intervene by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Local Rule 7.2 Certificate, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit Affidavit of Walter Powers, Jr., # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of James Gallagher, # 5 Exhibit Letter to Mayor Landrieu, # 6 Proposed Pleading Intervening Complaint, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Notice of Submission)(Alpaugh, Chester) Modified on 8/6/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/06/2012)
10 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 9 MOTION to Intervene . The title of the attached Notice should reflect Notice of Submission instead of Notice of Hearing on the actual document, pursuant to the Local Rules. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
11 MOTION to Intervene by Community United for Change. Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Proposed Order, # 10 Affidavit)(Finger, Davida) Modified text on 8/7/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/07/2012)
12 *EEROR:DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT; SEE REC. DOC.13** Intervenor COMPLAINT .(Hessler, Eric) Modified on 8/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/07/2012)
13 MOTION to Intervene by Police Association of New Orleans and Michael Glasser. Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hessler, Eric) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2012: # 3 Notice of Submission (Civil Only), # 4 Proposed Pleading) (clm, ). Modified on 8/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/07/2012)
14 **ERROR: DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT; SEE REC DOC. 13** NOTICE by New Orleans City Notice of Hearing. (Hessler, Eric) Modified on 8/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/07/2012
08/08/2012 08/08/2012
08/08/2012
08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/10/2012 08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012

15 MOTION to Intervene by Office of Independent Police Moniter, Susan Hutson. Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Rule 7.2 Certificate, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Notice of Submission, # 7 Proposed Pleading, # 8 Proposed Order)(Williams, John) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2012: # 9 Affidavit) (clm, ). (Entered: 08/08/2012)
16 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 12 Intervenor Complaint and 14 Notice (Other). Documents were incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to 'Motion to Intervene'. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
17 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 13 MOTION to Intervene . Filing attorney should have selected 'No' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Clerk modified docket text to remove 'Exparte'. In addition, Filing attorney incorrectly selected City of New Orleans as a filer. Correct filer(s) are Police Association of New Orleans and Michael Glasser. Lastly, filing attorney should have set this motion for submission. Clerk took corrective action Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
18 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 15 MOTION to Intervene . Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Motion set for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Clerk took corrective action. In addition, The title of the attached Notice should reflect Notice of Submission instead of Notice of Hearing on the actual document, pursuant to the Local Rules. Lastly, Filing attorney omitted an affidavit while attaching documents to motion. Affidavit subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
19 Minute Entry: Status conference held 8/8/12. Should the parties wish to issue a RFP for the monitoring team for the proposed Consent Decree, the parties should file a motion seeking approval of the Court and attach the proposed RFP. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
20 ORDER setting 15 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene , 11 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene for oral argument on 8/20/12 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Susie Morgan.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
21 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
22 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 21 First MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record . Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
23 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 8/14/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan to discuss the issuance of a Request for Proposals by the City and the DOJ for a monitoring team for the proposed Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
24 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Sharonda R. Williams,Erica N. Beck,Mary Katherine Taylor,Matthew J. Lindsay,Christy C. Harowski,Brian J. Capitelli,Ralph Capitelli for New Orleans City. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/13/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
25 Minute Entry: Status Conference held before Judge Susie Morgan on 8/14/2012. The parties discussed the issuance of a Request for Proposals ("RFP") by the City and the Department of Justice for a monitoring team for the proposed Consent Decree. (cbn) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
26 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM filed by New Orleans City re 11 MOTION to Intervene , 15 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene . (Beck, Erica) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
27 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by United States of America re 11 MOTION to Intervene , 15 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene , 13

08/17/2012
08/17/2012 08/17/2012 08/17/2012
08/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012

MOTION to Intervene . (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
28 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Vincent Warren and Darius Charney (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) by Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Cerificate of Good Standing for E.Vincent Warren, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing Darius Charney, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Proposed Order)(Williams, John) Modified text on 8/20/2012 (cms, ). (Entered: 08/17/2012)
29 DEFICIENT−REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr re 9 MOTION to Intervene . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Supplemental Affidavit of James Gallagher)(Alpaugh, Chester) Modified on 8/20/2012 (cms, ). (Entered: 08/17/2012)
30 Letter to Judge Morgan from Ruthie Frierson, Founder and Chairman of Citizens for A Greater New Orleans, dated 8/16/12 (cbn) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
31 ORDER: Oral argument on the motions to intervene, scheduled for 8/20/12 at 2:00 p.m., will be held in Courtroom C−501. Further ordered, that the hearing for consideration of the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree, scheduled for 8/29/12 will also be held in Courtroom C−501. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
32 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading , # 3 Exhibit A )(Alpaugh, Chester) Modified text on 8/21/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/20/2012)
Filing fee paid from Office of the Independent Police Monitor for Vincent Warren and Darius Charney re 28 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $ 200) (mmv, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
37 Minute Entry: Oral Argument held before Judge Susie Morgan re 11 MOTION to Intervene filed by Community United for Change, 15 MOTION to Intervene filed by Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor, 9 MOTION to Intervene filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr., 13 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. Counsel were granted leave to file supplemental memoranda within 24 hours. Motions taken under submission. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa) (cbn) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
57 Comment from Col. (RET) Terry Ebbert, Chairman of the New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, Inc. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
33 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Community United for Change re 11 MOTION to Intervene . (Finger, Davida) Modified text on 8/22/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/21/2012)
34 Public comments received are posted on court's website. (Entered: 08/21/2012)
35 ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 8/22/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
36 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to E. Vincent Warren. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/20/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
38 Supplemental Memorandum by Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor to 15 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Williams, John) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
39 ORDER granting 28 Ex Parte MOTION of Darius Charney to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/20/12.(cbn) Modified on 8/21/2012 (cbn). (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 08/22/2012 08/22/2012 08/22/2012 08/23/2012
08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012
08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012
08/27/2012 08/27/2012

40 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr, in Support of 9 MOTION to Intervene . (Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
41 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference held before Judge Susie Morgan on 8/22/12. The parties discussed the upcoming fairness hearing on the proposed Consent Decree. (cbn) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
42 NOTICE of Publication on Fairness Hearing by New Orleans City (Williams, Sharonda) Modified text on 8/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/22/2012)
43 **DEFICIENT** MOTION for Leave to File Request for Proposals by United States of America. (Gunston, Emily) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2012: # 1 Exhibit a) (cbn, ). Modified on 8/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/22/2012)
44 MOTION for Leave to Distribute Request for Proposals by United States of America. Motion set for 9/12/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Gunston, Emily) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2012: # 3 Exhibit A) (clm, ). (Entered: 08/23/2012)
45 ORDER granting 32 Motion for Leave to File reply memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
46 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated re 9 MOTION to Intervene . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit a)(cbn) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
47 TRANSCRIPT of Oral Argument held on August 20, 2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/23/2012. (rsg) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
48 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
49 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 44 MOTION Leave to Request Proposals . (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
50 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Post Hearing Memorandum Related to Motions to Intervene by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
51 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record Jude Volek by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
52 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Leave to File supplemental memo. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
53 Supplemental Memorandum filed by United States of America RE 11 MOTION to Intervene , 15 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene . (cbn) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
54 ORDER: Given the uncertain weather conditions as a result of Hurricane Isaac,the Fairness Hearing in the above−captioned matter scheduled for Wednesday, August 29, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. is RESCHEDULED toWednesday, September 5, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. and will be held at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras St., Courtroom C−501 New Orleans, La. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn, ) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
55 ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to File supplemental memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
56 Supplemental Memorandum filed by New Orleans City RE: 11 MOTION to Intervene , 15 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene .

08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012

(cbn) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
58 Comment from Robert Williams, inmate at Angola State Penitentiary. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
59 Comment from George Mahdi, Neighborhood Unity/Merge (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
60 Comment from Betsy Barnes, and Richard L. Root, Barnes & Root LLC (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
61 Comment from Katie Schwartzmann, Southern Poverty Law Center (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
62 Comment from Bryon Harrell, Baptist Community Ministries (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
63 Comment from Marjorie R. Esman, ACLU (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
64 Comment from Judy Benitez, Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
65 Comment from Coach Frank, Conscious Concerned Citizens Controlling Community Changes (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
66 Comment from W.C. Johnson (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
67 Comment from Darnell Parker (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
68 Comment from Walter Milton (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
69 Comment from Cynthia Parker (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
70 Comment from Linda Hill, Ourstory Network (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
71 Comment from Malcolm Suber (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
72 Affidavits of various citizens (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
73 Comment from Scarlett Lanzaz, Puentes New Orleans (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
74 Comment from Edouard R. Quartrevaux, Inspector General of the City of New Orleans (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
75 Comment from Brad Cousins, Court Watch NOLA (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
76 Comment from Robert Brown, Business Council of New Orleans and the River Region (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
77 Comment from Sharon Jasper (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
78 Comment from Kawana Jasper, Community United for Change (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
79 Comment from Shana Sears, Community United for Change (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
80 Comment from Destiny D.A.U. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
81 Comment from Darrelyn Mason, New Legacy Ministries (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
82 Comment from Minister Tela L. Love, New Legacy Ministries (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
83 Comment from BreakOut Youth (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
84 Comment from Matthew Davis (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
85 Comment from Eric Hessler, attorney (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
86 Comment from C. Theodore Alpaugh, attorney (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 09/04/2012
09/05/2012
09/05/2012

87 Comment from Lisa Hudson, Department of City Civil Service (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
88 Comment from Katie Schwartzmann, Southern Poverty Law Center (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
89 Comment from Sandra Wheeler Hester (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
90 Comment from Karla Sikaffy duPlantier, and Daesy Behrhorst, Louisiana Language Access Coalition (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
91 Comment from the family of Adolph Grimes, III (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
92 Comment from Susan Hutson, Independent Police Monitor (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
93 Comment form Jasmine Groves and other family members (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
94 Comment from Jasmine Groves (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
95 Comment from Judonna Mitchell (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
96 Comment from Reverend Norwood Thompson, Southern Christian Leadership Conference (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
97 Comment from Cecile W. Tebo, Crisis Intervention Specialists (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
98 Comment from Dr. Romell Madison (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
99 Comment from Mary E. Howell, Attorney (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
100 Comment from Col (RET) Terry Ebbert, New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, Inc. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
101 Due to the effects of Hurricane Isaac, the Fairness Hearing set 9/5/12 is RESET to 9/12/12 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom C−501. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
102 ORDER AND REASONS denying 9 Motion to Intervene; denying 11 Motion to Intervene; denying 13 Motion to Intervene; denying 15 Motion to Intervene. The Court will allow the proposed Intervenors to participate in the Fairness Hearing set 9/12/12 as outlined herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
103 ORDER granting 51 Motion for Jude Volek to Appear as additional attorney for United States of America. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/27/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
105 Comment from Yihong "Julie" Mao, attorney with the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice. (cbn) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
106 Comment from Jennifer Rosenbaum, Legal Director of New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice. (cbn) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
111 Comment from Byron Harrell, Baptist Community Ministries. (cbn) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
104 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Fairness Hearing by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
107 Amendment/Supplement to Document by United States of America re 44 MOTION Leave to Request Proposals Amended Exhibit A (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
108 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 104 MOTION to Continue Fairness Hearing. The title of the attached proposed order should not include the word 'Proposed' but only reflect 'Order' on the actual document. In addition, document does not contain Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge (2). (clm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

09/05/2012 09/06/2012
09/14/2012 09/14/2012 09/14/2012 09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012

109 ORDER granting 104 Motion to Continue the Fairness Hearing from 9/12/12 to 9/21/12 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom #C−501. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
110 ORDER granting 44 MOTION Leave to Request Proposals filed by United States of America. ORDERED that this Order and the attached RFP must be posted on the United States and City's websites and distributed to the list of potential respondents attached hereto as Exhibit B. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pre−proposal conference referenced in Section V (Pre−Proposal Conference; Questions Regarding RFP) of the RFP will be held September 20, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. CST in Room C−467, Fourth Floor, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any addendums to the RFP, including the form of the professional services contract to be entered into with the Monitor, subject to Court approval of the Consent Decree and the selection of the Monitor, must be submitted to the Court for approval prior to the addendums publication. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Evaluation Committees selected short list of candidates for Monitor, referenced in Section VI (Selection Process) of the RFP, must be filed with the Court at least five working days before interviews are scheduled to be held and must include the names of the candidates for Monitor and the dates, times and locations of the interviews. The interviews are to be conducted in a public forum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(cbn) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
112 Comment from dodiyi J. Williamswest, Pastor, Jesus Savior Living God Church (cbn) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
113 ORDER: the Motion for Extension of Time to File Amicus Brief, Alternatively Joinder of Indispensable Party be and is hereby DENIED. The Clerks Office shall file the Motion into the record of the above−captioned matter as a public comment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) Modified on 9/14/2012 (cbn) (CC to Dodiyi J. Williamwest at 1609 Port St., NOLA 70157) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
114 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint Supplemental MOTION for Entry of Decree filed by New Orleans City, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit)(Gunston, Emily) Modified on Modified on 9/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 09/14/2012)
115 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 114 Supplemental Memorandum. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Motion for Entry of Decree'. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event and removing the link. No further action necessary. (clm, ) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
116 Amendment/Supplement to Document by New Orleans City, United States of America re 114 MOTION Corrected Errata Sheet (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
117 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for 9/19/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/17/2012.(tsf, ) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
118 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr as to 102 Order on Motion to Intervene. (Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 053L−3664361.) (Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
119 MOTION to Continue /Stay Fairness Hearing by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. Motion set for 10/10/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
120 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Submission of Motion to Continue/Stay Fairness Hearing by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
121 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Approval of Contract for the Monitor of the Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Taylor, Mary Katherine) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012
10/01/2012 10/02/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012

122 ORDER granting 121 MOTION Approval of Contract for the Monitor of the Consent Decree filed by New Orleans City. Counsel to comply with directives set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(cbn) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
123 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence by New Orleans City. Motion set for 9/21/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Williams, Sharonda) M (Entered: 09/20/2012)
124 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
125 ORDER granting 124 Motion to Expedite. Memorandum in opposition to the City's motion in limine shall be filed no later than 9/21/12 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
126 RESPONSE to Motion filed by United States of America re 123 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence. (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
127 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Susan Hutson, Office of the Independent Police Monitor re 123 MOTION in Limine to Fairness Hearing Testimony. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Williams, John) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
128 ORDER AND REASONS denying 119 Motion to Continue; granting 120 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
129 A pre−proposal conference regarding the monitor was held on 9/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(cbn) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
130 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 123 Motion in Limine, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/21/12. (tsf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/19/2012. The Court discussed the Pre−Proposal Conference to be held on 9/20/2012, at 2:00 p.m. (tsf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
132 Minute Entry: Fairness hearing held before Judge Susie Morgan on 9/21/12. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos.) (Attachments: # 1 OIPM exh list, # 2 OIPM exh 1, # 3 FOP exh list, # 4 FOP exh 1, # 5 FOP exh 1.1, # 6 FOP exh 1.2, # 7 FOP exh 2, # 8 FOP exh 3, # 9 FOP exh 4, # 10 FOP exh 5, # 11 FOP exh 6, # 12 FOP exh 7, # 13 FOP exh 8, # 14 FOP exh 9, # 15 FOP exh 10, # 16 FOP exh 11, # 17 CUC exh list, # 18 CUC exh 1, # 19 CUC exh 2, # 20 CUC exh 3, # 21 CUC exh 4, # 22 CUC exh 5, # 23 CUC exh 6, # 24 CUC exh 7, # 25 pla exh list, # 26 pla exh 1, # 27 pla exh 2, # 28 pla exh 3, # 29 pla exh 4, # 30 pla exh 5, # 31 pla exh 6, # 32 pla exh 7, # 33 dft exh list, # 34 dft exh a, # 35 dft exh b, # 36 dft exh c) (cbn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2012: # 37 CUC exh 8) (cbn, ). (Entered: 09/25/2012)
135 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr re 118 Notice of Appeal. (Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
136 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record Steve Parker by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
137 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 136 MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record Steve Parker. Document contains no Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Section E and Magistrate Judge 2. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
138 ORDER granting 136 Motion for Stephen C Parker to Appear as Counsel of Record for United States of America. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/3/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
139 Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 10/3/2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. Parties discussed the comments regarding the proposed Consent Decree that were submitted. (cbn) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/10/2012 10/12/2012 10/16/2012 10/23/2012 10/24/2012 10/26/2012 10/27/2012 11/07/2012 12/04/2012 12/04/2012 12/04/2012 12/04/2012
12/19/2012 01/04/2013
01/04/2013 01/07/2013

140 Appeal Record on Loan re 118 Notice of Appeal − 4 Volumes of Original Record, and 1 Transcript. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
141 Letter to Judge Morgan from Claude A. Schlesinger, and C. Theodore Alpaugh, III dated 10/11/12 (cbn) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
143 Statement by Community United for Change Letter to Judge (Quigley, William) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
145 Comment from Keith Hudson. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
144 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Community United for Change as to 102 Order on Motion to Intervene. (Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 053L−3702534.) (Quigley, William) Modified to add linkage on 10/25/2012 (gbw, ). Modified on 5/15/2014 (jdh). (Entered: 10/24/2012)
146 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Leave to Reopen the Submission Period for Responses to the Request for Proposals by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Attachment(s) added on 10/26/2012: # 2 Addendum) (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/26/2012)
147 ORDER granting 146 Motion for leave to reopen the submission period for responses to the request for proposals. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 10/27/2012)
148 ORDER Extending the DBE application deadline to Friday, November 16, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. CST, as set forth in the proposed addendum re 146 Joint MOTION for Leave to Reopen the Submission Period for Responses to the Request for Proposals . Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/7/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
149 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Byron R. Arthur by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Main Document 149 and Attachment 1 replaced on 12/4/2012) (tsf). (Entered: 12/04/2012)
150 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 149 MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Byron R. Arthur. Image(s) filed sideways. Clerk rotated and reattached image(s). Please adjust scanner for future filings. No further action necessary. (tsf) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
151 ORDER granting 149 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record Attorney Byron R. Arthur for defendant City of New Orleans. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
152 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/4/2012. Status Conference set for Wednesday, 12/19/2012 02:00 PM CST before Judge Susie Morgan, as stated herein. Counsel for the parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court no later than Friday, 12/14/2012 5:00 PM CST. (tsf) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
153 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/19/2012. Status Conference set for 1/11/2013 10:00 AM CST before Judge Susie Morgan. (caa, ) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
154 DEFICIENT** MOTION for Relief from re 102 Order on Motion to Intervene by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. Motion set for 1/30/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit)(Hessler, Eric) Modified on 1/7/2013 (gbw, ). Modified on 1/7/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/04/2013)
155 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Relief from Order by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hessler, Eric) Modified on 1/7/2013 (gbw, ). Modified on 1/7/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/04/2013)
156 **DEFICIENT** MOTION to Set Aside Judgment re 102 Order on Motion to Intervene, by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. Motion set for 1/30/2012 10:30 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit 1 & 2)(Hessler, Eric) Modified on 1/8/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 01/07/2013 01/11/2013
01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/23/2013
01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/29/2013
01/31/2013 01/31/2013
01/31/2013 02/01/2013 02/01/2013

157 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Relief from Judgment by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hessler, Eric) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
158 ORDER denying 157 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
159 ORDER AND REASONS granting 2 Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Decree and 114 Joint Supplemental MOTION for Entry of Decree. The City has informed the Court that it intends to file a motion seeking relief from the judgment entered in connection with this order, as stated herein. Such motion shall be filed no later than January 31, 2013, at 5:00 pm. Any response to the City's motion shall be filed no later than February 15, 2013, at 5:00 pm. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree, # 2 Errata Sheet) (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
160 JUDGMENT that the Joint Motions for Entry of Decree are GRANTED and APPROVED AS AMENDED, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2013.(tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
161 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/11/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
162 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan:Status Conference held on 1/23/2013. Court denied the City's request for a two week extension to file its motion for relief from the Court's 1/11/13 order. The United States and the City shall no later than 2/15/13 designate five persons each to serve as Evaluation Committee members. (cbn) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
163 Letter to Chief Serpas from Wesley Ware, BreakOut Director dated 1/19/13 (cbn) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
164 Letter to Director Wesley Ware from Superintendent of Police Ronal W. Serpas dated 1/23/13 (cbn) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
165 MOTION for Relief from 102 Order on Motion to Intervene by Michael Glasser, Police Association of New Orleans. Motion set for 2/13/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit 1 & 2)(Hessler, Eric) Modified on 1/29/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/29/2013)
166 ERROR: REFILED AS DOC. #167** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/31/2013)
167 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Motion to Vacate, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # Exhibit A, # 6 Exibits B−F, # 7 Exhibits 1−32, # 8 Exhibits 33−46, # 9 Exhibit 47, # 10 Exhibit 47i−49, # 11 Exhibit 50−51, # 12 Exhibit 52, # 13 Exhibit 52i, # 14 Exhibits 53−64, # 15 Exhibit 64i, # 16 Exhibit 64ii, # 17 Exhibit 64iii, # 18 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/31/2013)
168 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Stay by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/31/2013)
169 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 166 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages . Document was filed in error and refiled as Document #167. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
170 ORDERED that the City shall refile its Motion to Stay as an opposed motion, and include a supporting memorandum, no later than 2/4/13 at 5:00 p.m. The United States shall respond to the City's motion no later than 2/7/13 at 5:00 p.m. The motion shall be submitted to the Court for consideration as soon as the Court is in receipt of the United States' response. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Main Document 170 replaced on 2/1/2013) (bbc, ). (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/01/2013 02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/05/2013
02/05/2013
02/06/2013 02/07/2013 02/08/2013 02/08/2013 02/13/2013 02/15/2013 02/15/2013 02/15/2013
02/15/2013 02/15/2013

171 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 170 Order. Incorrect image initially attached. Image has been replaced & is also attached herein. (bbc, ) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
172 MOTION to Stay re 160 Judgment, 159 Order by New Orleans City. Motion set for 2/27/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/04/2013)
173 ORDER granting 167 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/1/13. (cbn) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
174 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by United States of America re 165 MOTION for Relief from 102 Order on Motion to Intervene . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
175 MOTION to vacate consent decree by New Orleans City. Motion set for 3/13/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B − F, # 4 Exhibit 1 − 32, # 5 Exhibit 33 − 46, # 6 Exhibit 47, # 7 Exhibit 47i − 49, # 8 Exhibit 50 − 51, # 9 Exhibit 52, # 10 Exhibit 52i, # 11 Exhibit 53 − 64, # 12 Exhibit 64i, # 13 Exhibit 64ii, # 14 Exhibit 64iii, # 15 Proposed Order, # 16 Notice of Submission)(cbn, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
176 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 174 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
177 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by United States of America re 172 MOTION to Stay re 160 Judgment, 159 Order . (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
178 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 177 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Document contains no Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Section E and Magistrate Judge 2. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
179 ORDER AND REASONS denying 172 Motion to Stay, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/8/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
180 NOTICE OF APPEAL by New Orleans City as to 160 Judgment, 159 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
280 USCA Appeal Fee paid as to New Orleans City (Filing fee $ 455) re 180 Notice of Appeal filed by New Orleans City (mmv, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
182 Memorandum by New Orleans City re 162 Status Conference, (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
183 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
184 RESPONSE to Motion filed by United States of America re 175 MOTION to Vacate. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
185 Memorandum by United States of America re Designation of Membership of Monitor Proposal Evaluation Committee (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
186 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Consent Decree by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, #

02/15/2013 02/18/2013 02/18/2013 02/18/2013 02/18/2013 02/18/2013 02/19/2013 02/19/2013 02/20/2013
02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013
02/21/2013 02/22/2013

2 Proposed Pleading Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Consent Decree)(Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
194 Appeal Record on Loan to Angela Miller re 180 Notice of Appeal, 118 Notice of Appeal, 144 Notice of Appeal − 4 Volumes of Original Record.(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
187 ORDER that if the City wishes to file a reply in further support of its 175 MOTION to Vacate, the City shall do so no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013, at NOON. Such reply shall not exceed ten (10) pages. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
188 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for WEDNESDAY, 2/20/2013 02:00 PM, in open court and on the record, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2013.(tsf) (Copy to Edouard Quatrevaux) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
189 ORDER granting 183 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The United States shall be permitted to file an opposition to the City's 175 Motion to Vacate in excess of the 25−page limit. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
190 ORDER granting 186 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Support of 175 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
191 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated and Walter Powers, Jr re 175 MOTION to Vacate. (tsf) (Entered: 02/18/2013)
192 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New Orleans City for proceedings held on 8/20/2012 re 180 Notice of Appeal. (Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/20/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/19/2013)
193 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by New Orleans City for proceedings held on 9/21/12 re 180 Notice of Appeal. (Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/20/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/19/2013)
195 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition of Motion to Vacate Consent Decree by Community United for Change. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition of Motion to Vacate Consent Decree)(Quigley, William) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
196 ORDER granting 195 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
197 AMICUS CURIAE MEMORANDUM filed by Community United for Change in opposition re 175 Motion to Vacate Consent Decree. (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
198 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/20/2013. ORDER that the City shall file a motion to substitute Sharonda Williams to serve on the Committee no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. CST. FURTHER ORDER that the parties shall inform the Court, by filing a joint pleading, if they are unable to establish a timetable for selecting the parties' candidate and the format for evaluating proposals no later than MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. CST. FURTHER ORDER that the parties shall distribute notice to all respondents who submitted proposals as stated herein, no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. CST. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (tsf) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
199 EXPARTE MOTION by United States of America for Consent for Member of Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee to be Absent from Meeting (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) Modified on 2/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/21/2013)
200 The request for Consent for Member of Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee to be absent from meeting is GRANTED, and Joshua Ederheimer is excused from the 2/26/13 meeting. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/21/13.(cbn)

02/22/2013 02/22/2013 02/24/2013 02/28/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013 03/06/2013 03/21/2013
04/04/2013 04/05/2013
04/05/2013
04/09/2013

(Entered: 02/22/2013)
201 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Member of Evaluation Committee by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
202 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by New Orleans City re 175 MOTION to Vacate. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit Exhibit "C")(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
203 ORDER granting 201 Motion to Substitute. Sharonda R. Williams shall be substituted for Norman Foster as a member of the Evaluation Committee for selection of the Consent Decree monitor. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/22/13. (cbn) (Entered: 02/24/2013)
204 Supplemental Record #139−147 on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 180 Notice of Appeal, 118 Notice of Appeal, 144 Notice of Appeal. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
205 Request by New Orleans City, United States of America for Modification of Order and Notice of Agreement on Process to Select a Consent Decree Monitor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
206 ORDER approving re 205 Joint Request as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/6/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (tsf) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
207 NOTICE that the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee will hold public meetings to select the Consent Decree Court Monitor, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/6/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
208 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT of Consent Decree Hearing held on September 21, 2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504−589−7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/19/2013. (rsg) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
209 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Leave to Reschedule Fourth Public Meeting in Monitor Selection Process by United States of America, New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) Modified on 4/4/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/04/2013)
210 NOTICE: The the Court, by separate order, has approved the Parties'request to reschedule the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee's (Committee) April 9, 2013 meeting to Monday, April 15, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. The Committee meeting has been rescheduled to April 15, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. in order to allow sufficient time to obtain additional information regarding the remaining candidates for the Consent Decree Court Monitor (Monitor) and to allow the public time to comment on the remaining candidates for Monitor. The Committee will also hold a meeting on Tuesday, April 30, 2013, at 9:00a.m. in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street,New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. The public is invited to attend this meeting. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
211 ORDER granting 209 Motion to Reschedule Fourth Public Meeting in Monitor Selection Process to Monday, April 15, 2013, at 12:00 pm. FURTHER ORDER that the parties shall deliver a recorded copy of the finalists' interviews to the Court no later than April 12, 2013, at 5:00 pm. FURTHER ORDER that the parties shall record the April 15, 2013 meeting and deliver a recorded copy to the Court no later than April 22, 2013, at 5:00 pm. FURTHER ORDER that the parties shall record the April 30, 2013 meeting a deliver a recorded copy to the Court no later than May 7, 2013, at 5:00 pm. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/5/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
212 MOTION to Modify in Part and Confirm in Part Monitor Selection Process by United States of America. Motion set for 4/12/2013 before Judge Susie Morgan.

04/09/2013 04/10/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013
04/15/2013
04/15/2013
04/23/2013 04/24/2013 04/26/2013 04/29/2013

(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
213 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Briefing of US' Mtn to Modify in Part and Confirm in Part Monitor Selection Process by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
214 ORDER granting 213 Motion to Expedite. The City shall file its opposition to the United States' Motion to Modify in Part and Confirm in Part Monitor Selection Process no later than Friday, April 12, 2013, at noon. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/10/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
215 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for today, Friday, April 12, 2013, at 2:00 PM in chambers, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/12/2013.(tsf) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
216 Response/Reply by New Orleans City to 211 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Williams, Sharonda) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/15/2013: # 1 Notice of Manual Attachment) (caa, ). Modified on 4/15/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 04/12/2013)
217 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by New Orleans City re 212 MOTION to Modify in Part and Confirm in Part Monitor Selection Process. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 4/15/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 04/12/2013)
218 ORDER Status Conference reset for 4/12/2013 3:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/12/2013.(my, ) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
220 Manual Attachment Received re 216 Remark filed by New Orleans City. (caa, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
222 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/12/2013. The Court DENIED the 212 MOTION to Modify the Monitor Selection Process filed by United States of America. In accordance with the process the Court approved for selecting the Monitor, the parties will submit their preferred candidate to the Court for approval on April 30, 2013. If the parties are unable to agree on a candidate to serve as Monitor, the Court will select the Monitor. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
219 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 216 Remark. Filing attorney selected incorrect event and a Notice of Manual Attachment should have been filed as attachment to filing. Correct event is Response/Reply. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event and adding notice. All future filings should be entered this way. No further action necessary at this time. (caa, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
221 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 217 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Attachment has duplicate description. For attachment, select either a category OR enter a description, but not both since this results in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action. No further action necessary at this time.(caa, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
223 Letter by New Orleans City to Court dated 4/23/2013 re transmitting Recording of Selection Committee Meeting. (Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 4/23/2013 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/24/2013: # 1 Manual attachment) (cbn, ). (Entered: 04/23/2013)
224 Letter to Judge re: Selection of Monitor by Community United for Change. (Quigley, William) Modified on 4/25/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/24/2013)
225 Letters received by the Court RE: public comments regarding the monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
226 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Matthew J. Lindsay as Attorney by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lindsay, Matthew) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/29/2013 04/30/2013
04/30/2013
04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 05/03/2013 05/06/2013 05/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/09/2013 05/09/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013

227 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Postpone Fifth Public Meeting by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
228 ORDER granting 227 Motion to Reschedule Fifth Public Meeting to select a Consent Decree Monitor to Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM noon. FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, the Parties shall so inform the Court no later than Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 11:59 p.m.. The Court will then select the Monitor pursuant to paragraph 478 of the Consent Decree entered as a judgment of this Court on January 11, 2013. FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, no later than Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 11:59 p.m., each party shall file a memorandum, not to exceed twenty pages excluding exhibits, setting forth its arguments in support of the partys respective choice. Each party shall also deliver a binder containing a hard copy of its memorandum and supporting exhibits to chambers of the undersigned no later than Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall file in the record copies of all written comments received regarding the Monitor no later than Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/30/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
229 NOTICE that the Court re 228 Order on Motion to Reschedule Fifth Public Meeting, has approved the parties' request to reschedule the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee meeting from April 30, 2013 to TUESDAY, May 14, 2013, at 12:00 P.M., as stated herein. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. If the parties are unable to agree on a monitor, they are to inform the Court no later than TUESDAY, May 14, 2013, at 11:59 P.M. The City of New Orleans will file copies of all public comments received in the electronic record of United States of America v. City of New Orleans, Civil Action No. 12−1924 (E.D. La.). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/30/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
230 Letters received by the Court RE: public comments regarding the monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
231 Letter to the court RE: public comment regarding monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
232 ORDER granting 226 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Matthew Lindsay. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
238 Letter to Clerk from USCA dated 5/1/2013 re Motion to vacate consent decree. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
233 Letter to BreakOUT! Director Wesley Ware from Superintendent Ronal Serpas dated 5/6/2013 re LGBT policy currently under development. (tsf) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
234 Letters to the Court dated 5/1/2013 re: public comments on monitor selection. (tsf) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
235 Letter to the Court re: public comments on monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
236 Letter to Judge Morgan dated 5/6/2013 from Adam Safir, President of Vigilant Resources International re candidates for monitor selection. (tsf) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
237 Letters to the Court re public comments on monitor selection. (tsf) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
239 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Fifth Public Meeting by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
240 Letter to Judge Morgan dated 5/12/2013 re public comments on monitor selection by W.C. Johnson, Malcolm Suber, Cynthia Parker, Randolph Scott Organizers Community United for Change.(Quigley, William) Modified on 5/13/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013 05/13/2013 05/13/2013 05/13/2013
05/13/2013
05/14/2013 05/14/2013 05/15/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013 05/17/2013 05/19/2013 05/20/2013 05/22/2013

241 Letter to the Court regarding public comments on monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
242 Letter to the Court re: public comments on monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
243 RESPONSE to Motion filed by United States of America re 239 MOTION to Continue Fifth Public Meeting . (Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
244 ORDER granting 239 Motion to Continue Fifth Public Meeting to Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. noon. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. FURTHER ORDER that if the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, the Parties shall inform the Court no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 11:59 p.m. FURTHER ORDER that if the Parties are unable to agree ona Monitor, each party shall file a memorandum and deliver a hard copy to chambers no later than Wednesday, May 29, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., as further stated herein. FURTHER ORDER that the Parties shall post a copy of (1) this order and(2) the Courts forthcoming notice on the doors of the Bienville Club Lounge no later than Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. FURTHER ORDER that the Parties shall publish a copy of (1) this order and (2) the Courts forthcoming notice on their respective websites no later than Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
245 NOTICE that the Court, by separate order, has approved the City's request to reschedule the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committees May 14, 2013 meeting to Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. noon, as further stated herein. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
246 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Richard Cortizas and Erica Beck as Attorney by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Taylor, Mary Katherine) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
247 Letter to the Court re: public comments regarding monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
248 Letter to the court re: public comments regarding monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
249 ORDER granting 246 Motion to Withdraw Erica N. Beck and Richard Felipe Cortizas as additional counsel for City of New Orleans. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/15/13. (cbn) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
250 Letter to the court re: public comment regarding monitor selection. (cbn) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
251 MOTION to Modify Public Meeting Schedule of Monitor Evaluation Committee by United States of America. Motion set for 5/20/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Gunston, Emily) Modified on 5/20/2013 (caa, ). Modified on 5/20/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 05/17/2013)
252 ORDER that the City shall respond to the 251 MOTION to Modify Public Meeting Schedule of Monitor Evaluation Committee filed by United States of America no later than Monday, May 20, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/19/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 05/19/2013)
253 RESPONSE to Motion filed by New Orleans City re 251 MOTION to Modify Public Meeting Schedule of Monitor Evaluation Committee . (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
254 ORDER granting in the alternative 251 Motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the fifth public meeting to select the Monitor is RESCHEDULED to Friday, May 31, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. noon. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, the Parties shall so inform the Court no later than Friday, May 31, 2013, at 11:59 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to

05/22/2013
05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/24/2013 05/28/2013 05/29/2013 05/30/2013
05/30/2013
05/31/2013

agree on a Monitor, no later than Friday, May 31, 2013, at 11:59 p.m., each party shall file a memorandum, not to exceed twenty pages excluding exhibits, setting forth its arguments in support of the partys respective choice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall post a copy of (1) this order and (2) the Courts forthcoming notice4 on the doors of the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, no later than Thursday, May 23, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall publish a copy of (1) this order and (2) the Courts forthcoming notice on their respective websites no later than Thursday, May 23, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/13. (cbn) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
255 Notice is given that by separate order, the Court has approved the United States' request to reschedule the Consent Decree Court Monitor SelectionCommittee's May 28, 2013 meeting to Friday, May 31, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. noon. The public is invited to provide comments, in writing, regarding the Monitorselection process or the selection of the Monitor. Comments may be e−mailed to City Attorney Sharonda Williams at shrwilliams@nola.gov. Comments also may be mailed or hand−delivered to the following address: City Attorney City of New Orleans Re: NOPD Consent Decree Court Monitor 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, LA 70112. The City of New Orleans will file copies of all public comments received in the electronic record of United States of America v. City of New Orleans, Civil Action No. 12−1924. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/13.(cbn) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
256 ORDER AND REASONS denying 175 Motion to vacate consent decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
257 MOTION to Stay by New Orleans City. Motion set for 6/19/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
258 ORDER AND REASONS denying 257 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
259 Letter to the Court from Susan Hutson, Independent Police Monitor dated 5/24/2013 re: public comments regarding monitor selection. (Attachments: # 1 Letter − Continued) (tsf) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
260 ORDER AND REASONS denying 165 Motion for relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/29/13. (cbn) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
261 MINUTE ENTRY: The Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed all proceedings in this matter until further notice. Accordingly, the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committees (Committee) May 31, 2013 meeting is CANCELED and the attendant briefing schedule regarding the Monitor is VACATED. The Court will issue a separate notice to the public that the Committee meeting has been canceled. The Parties shall post a copy of (1) this minute entry (without attachments) and (2) the Courts notice on the doors of the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, no later than Friday, May 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.; In addition, the Parties shall publish a copy of (1) this minute entry (without attachments) and (2) the Courts notice on their respective websites no later than Friday, May 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The Court will issue further orders, as appropriate, upon receipt of the Fifth Circuits forthcoming ruling on the Citys petition for an emergency stay. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(gbw, ) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
262 Notice is given that the City of New Orleans has appealed the Courts order approving the Consent Decree to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) and requested an emergency stay of all proceedings in the abovecaptioned matter. The Fifth Circuit has temporarily stayed all proceedings until further notice. As a result, the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committees May 31, 2013 meeting to select the Monitor has been CANCELED. The Court will issue further orders, as appropriate, upon receipt of the Fifth Circuits forthcoming ruling (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
263 ORDER of USCA: ORDERED that appellant's motion for stay pending appeal is temporarily granted pending submission and consideration of appellee's response no later than noon, Monday, June 3, 2013 and further order of this Court. USCA Judge

06/01/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013
06/06/2013
06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/11/2013 06/13/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013

Name: Jones, Dennis, and Haynes. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
264 Public comments RE: monitor selection (cbn) (Entered: 06/01/2013)
265 ORDER of USCA: ORDERED that the temporary order entered 5/30/2013 is hereby VACATED and the City's motion for stay pending appeal is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal shall be expedited. USCA Judge Name: Jones, Dennis, and Haynes. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
266 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk: Document #266 was entered in error. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
267 IT IS ORDERED that the fifth and final Committee meeting to select the Monitor is RESCHEDULED to Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, the Parties shall so inform the Court no later than Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the Parties are unable to agree on a Monitor, no later than Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 5:00 p.m., each party shall file a memorandum, not to exceed twenty pages excluding exhibits, setting forth its arguments in support of the party's respective choice. Each party shall also deliver a binder containing a hard copy of its memorandum and supporting exhibits to chambers of the undersigned no later than Friday, June 14, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Each exhibit must be indexed, tabbed, and marked with its identifying CM/ECF document number stamp. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(cbn) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
268 NOTICE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) vacated the temporary stay entered in the above−captioned matter. Accordingly, the fifth and final public meeting of the Consent Decree Court Monitor Selection Committee (Committee) is RESCHEDULED to Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Bienville Club Lounge at the Mercedez−Benz Superdome, 1500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
269 Hillard Heintz Proposal for the New Orleans Police Department's Consent Decree Court Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Hillard Heintz Proposal − Part 2, # 2 Hillard Heintz Proposal − Part 3, # 3 Hillard Heintz Proposal − Part 4, # 4 Hillard Heintz Presentation Documents) (tsf) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
270 Sheppard Mullin Proposal for the New Orleans Police Department's Consent Decree Court Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Sheppard Mullin PowerPoint, # 2 Sheppard Mullin Presentation Materials) (tsf) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
271 TRANSCRIPT of NOPD Monitor Selection Meeting held on April 2, 2013. (tsf) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
272 TRANSCRIPT of NOPD Monitor Selection Meeting held on April 3, 2013. (tsf) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
273 TRANSCRIPT of NOPD Monitor Selection Meeting held on April 15, 2013. (tsf) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
274 Letter to The Court from Stacy Head dated 6/7/13, re: monitor selection (cbn) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
275 ORDER that the deadline for the Parties to file their memoranda and supporting exhibits is EXTENDED to Friday, June 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall deliver their binders no later than Friday, June 14, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (tsf) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
276 Memorandum by New Orleans City Regarding Consent Decree Monitor Candidates (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit B−Reference, # 3 Exhibit C−Melekian)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
277 Memorandum by United States of America Recommending Sheppard Mullin as Consent Decree Monitor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15

06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/20/2013 06/26/2013 07/05/2013
07/08/2013 07/17/2013 07/19/2013 07/22/2013 07/23/2013
07/24/2013 07/29/2013

Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Volek, Jude) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
278 ORDER that the parties shall deliver a copy of the audio recording of the June 13, 2013 Consent Decree Court Monitor Committee meeting to the Court no later than Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (tsf) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
279 Memorandum by New Orleans City Regarding Newly Enacted Law on Secondary Employment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
281 Appeal Record on Loan to Adam Swenek re 180 Notice of Appeal − 3 Volumes of Original Record, 1 Transcript, 1 Supplemental Record Volume & 1 Second Supplemental Record Volume. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
282 Memorandum by United States of America re 279 Memorandum Response to Defendant's Memorandum Regarding Establishment of Office of Police Secondary Employment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Gunston, Emily) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
283 ORDER AND REASONS: For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS ORDERED that Sheppard Mullin is selected as the Monitor required by the Consent Decree. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City negotiate in good faith the details of the professional services agreement with Sheppard Mullin, including a discussion of cost and a cap on costs.The United States is to be kept advised of the progress and substance of the negotiations and may have a representative present during in−person meetings and conference calls between the City and Sheppard Mullin. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set for July 19, 2013, at 12:30 p.m., for the parties to report to the Court on the status of negotiations, which the Court expects will be concluded by that time. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn, ) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
284 TRANSCRIPT of NOPD Monitor Selection Meeting held on June 13, 2013. Please note: The transcript states that the meeting occurred on June 6, 2013, which is incorrect. (tsf) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
285 Public comment submitted by Cyril Paul Martin. (cbn) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
286 ORDER that the status conference scheduled for today, 7/19/2013, at 12:30pm CST is continued to Tuesday, 7/23/2013, at 2:00pm CST. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/19/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
287 NOTICE OF APPEAL by New Orleans City as to 256 Order on 175 Motion to Vacate Consent Decree. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 7/23/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/22/2013)
288 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/23/2013. ORDERED that the City shall submit a copy of the proposed contract between it and the Monitor that reflects the provisions on which the parties agree and the provisions on which they do not by July 29, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. For provisions on which there is no agreement, the City, Sheppard Mullin, and the United States shall each submit their preferred language or join in anothers proposed language, along with an annotation explaining why the proposed language is preferable. FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall provide the Court with copies of the orders and related portions of the consent decrees in Seattle and Detroit that it mentioned during the conference by July 24, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference to discuss the contract between the City and the Monitor is set in chambers for July 30, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference to discuss the Citys progress in setting up the OPSE is set in chambers for September 18, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
289 USCA Appeal Fee paid as to New Orleans City (Filing fee $ 455) re 287 Notice of Appeal filed by New Orleans City (mmv, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
290 Professional Services Agreement by New Orleans City (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart of Disputed Provisions, # 2 Exhibit Monitor's Annotations)(Williams, Sharonda)

07/29/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 08/07/2013 08/07/2013 08/09/2013 08/10/2013
08/16/2013 08/27/2013 08/29/2013
09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/10/2013 09/13/2013 09/16/2013 09/17/2013 09/19/2013 09/24/2013 09/25/2013

Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
291 Amendment/Supplement to Document by New Orleans City re 290 Professional Services Agreement (Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
292 Explanation of Proposed Language by United States of America (Gunston, Emily) Modified on 7/31/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/30/2013)
296 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/30/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
293 Transcript of NOPD monitor first selection meeting, dated 3/7/13 (cbn) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
297 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/7/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
294 ORDER setting forth the terms governing the relationship among the City, the Monitor, and DOJ, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (tsf) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
295 Letter to the Court from Robert S. Beal, Executive Committee Member and Firm Co−Managing Partner for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP dated August 10, 2013, agreeing to the terms as set forth in the Order at Rec. Doc. 294. Effective immediately upon the filing of this agreement, the service of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, as Monitor begins. (tsf) (Entered: 08/10/2013)
298 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/16/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/27/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
300 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/29/2013. Status Conference set for 9/6/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Status Conference set for 9/18/2013 2:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Quarterly Meeting set for 11/7/2013 1:30 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (jrc, ) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
301 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/6/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (cbn) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
302 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/6/2013. Counsel to comply with the deadlines set forth herein. (cbn) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
303 Request by Community United for Change for Public Hearing by Monitor (Quigley, William) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
304 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/13/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
305 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/16/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
306 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/17/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
307 ORDER that the Status Conference set for 9/18/2013 has been continued to 10/3/2013 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/18/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
308 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/24/2013. (cbn) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
309 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/25/2013. (cbn (Entered: 09/26/2013)

09/27/2013 10/01/2013 10/03/2013 10/03/2013 10/08/2013 10/09/2013 10/17/2013 11/04/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/11/2013 11/20/2013
11/20/2013 11/20/2013
11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/25/2013
12/02/2013 12/24/2013

310 **ERROR: DOCKETED IN WRONG CASE** NOTICE by New Orleans City re Notice of Removal of State Court Action. (Attachments: # 1 State Court Pleadings Exhibit A)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 10/8/2013 (tsf). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
313 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 310 Notice of Removal. Document filed in wrong case. It should have been filed as a new complaint and assigned a new case number. Attorney will re−file this document accordingly. (tsf) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
311 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/3/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
312 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/3/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
314 Letter to Judge Morgan from Henry F. Yoder, Jr., Lakeview Crime Prevention District dated 9/16/13, RE: Consent Decree (cbn) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
315 Letter to Judge Morgan from Lee C. Reid, Adams and Reese dated 9/17/13. RE: Consent Decree. (cbn) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
316 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/17/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (cbn) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
317 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/4/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree (cbn) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
318 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/7/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
320 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/7/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
319 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/11/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (cbn) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
321 USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 11/19/2013 as to 118 Notice of Appeal filed by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr..; Ordered that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Further Ordered that appellants pay to appellees the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court. USCA judge name: Stewart, Davis, and Wiener. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
322 Appeal Record Returned (original exhibits and/or non−electronic documents) from U.S. Court of Appeals: 118 Notice of Appeal. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
323 USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 11/19/2013 as to 180 Notice of Appeal filed by New Orleans City. Ordered that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed; Further Ordered that defendant−appellant pay to plaintiff−appellee the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court. USCA judge name: Stewart, Davis, and Wiener. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
324 Appeal Record Returned (original exhibits and/or non−electronic documents) from U.S. Court of Appeals: 180 Notice of Appeal. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
325 ORDER of USCA. The court has granted the motion to supplement the record in this case with Exhibit A. By USCA Clerk. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
326 ORDER of USCA as to 287 Notice of Appeal, that under 5th Cir. R. 42.3, the appeal is dismissed as of 11/25/2013, for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to timely file the appellant's brief and record excerpts. USCA Clerk of Court (caa, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
327 MONITOR'S FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 First Quarterly Report) (tsf) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
328 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/24/2013 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (gbw, ) (Entered:

01/16/2014 01/16/2014
01/16/2014
01/17/2014 01/31/2014 02/03/2014 02/13/2014
02/13/2014 02/13/2014 02/20/2014 02/24/2014 03/12/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/20/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014

12/30/2013)
329 Memorandum regarding Status Conference by New Orleans City (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 1/17/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 01/16/2014)
330 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference with the Monitor was held on January 16, 2014, at 12:00p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (bwn) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
332 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/16/2014. IT IS ORDERED THAT a status conference will be held on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. CST to discuss matters related to secondary employment and NOPD recruiting and retention. Out−of−town participants may participate by telephone. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
331 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference regarding billing matters held on 1/17/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
333 DEFICIENT: EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/3/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 01/31/2014)
334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/3/2014. Status Conference set for 2/13/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
335 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 160 Consent Decree by New Orleans City and United States of America, Department of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 2/14/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/13/2014)
336 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/13/2014 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (bwn) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
337 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/13/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
339 ORDER granting 335 Motion to Amend/Correct Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
340 Letter to Stephen Parker, United States Department of Justice, from Kurt Weigle, President & CEO of Downtown Development District New Orleans, dated 2/17/2014 (bwn) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
338 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/12/2014 to discuss implementation of the consent decree. (bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
341 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/13/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
342 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/13/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
343 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a status conference shall be held in this matter onWednesday, April 16, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss ongoing matters. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
344 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/16/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
346 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference in Chambers was held on 4/16/2014. The Court met with the parties and discussed various matters related to implementation and monitoring of the Consent Decree. (cml) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/23/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/16/2014 05/16/2014 05/21/2014 05/21/2014
05/22/2014
05/22/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 06/03/2014
06/04/2014 06/10/2014
06/10/2014 06/13/2014 06/25/2014
06/25/2014 06/26/2014

345 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/23/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
347 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference with the Monitor held on 5/15/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
354 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/15/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
348 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference with the Monitor held on 5/16/2014. (caa) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
349 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/16/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
350 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., MOTION to Withdraw James B. Letten as Attorney by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parker, Stephen) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
351 ORDER − Due to a conflict in the Courts calendar, the quarterly meeting in the above matter presently scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. CDT is RESCHEDULED for Thursday, August 21, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. CDT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
352 ORDER granting 350 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Kenneth A. Polite for United States of America; granting 350 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Added attorney Kenneth A. Polite for United States of America. Attorney James B. Letten terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
353 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/22/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
355 Letter to the Court from Sharon B. Temple, Assistant Clerk of Council dated 5/23/2014 re Resolution of R−14−203. (bwn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
356 MONITOR'S SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Second Quarterly Report) (bwn) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
357 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/3/2014. The OPSE implementation schedule in Record Document 342 is AMENDED to postpone supervision by OPSE as stated herein. (tsf) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
358 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a status conference be held in chambers on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. CDT to discuss ongoing matters. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/4/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
359 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/10/2014. IT IS ORDERED that the status conference presently scheduled for Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. is CONTINUED to Friday, July 25, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
360 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference with the Monitor held on 6/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
361 ORDER − At the request of counsel, the status conference currently scheduled for Friday, July 25, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. CST, is RESCHEDULED for Friday, July 25, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. CST. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
362 MOTION to Amend 159 Consent Decree by New Orleans City. Motion set for 7/16/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A−Affidavit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
363 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion to Amend Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
364 ORDER granting 363 Motion to Expedite. The Department of Justice shall file a written response to the motion to amend by Friday, June 27, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Signed

06/26/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/29/2014
06/29/2014
06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/07/2014 07/21/2014
07/24/2014 07/24/2014

by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
365 RESPONSE to Motion filed by United States of America re 362 MOTION to Amend 159 Consent Decree . (Volek, Jude) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
366 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
367 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 6/27/2014 04:00 PM. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/27/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
370 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/27/2014. IT IS ORDERED that the City may file its biennial report, presently due on Monday, June 30, 2014, on Wednesday, July 2, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
368 ***FILED IN ERROR − See 369 for corrected filing*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Consent Decree by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Alpaugh, Chester) Modified on 6/30/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 06/29/2014)
369 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Consent Decree by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Alpaugh, Chester) (Entered: 06/29/2014)
371 ORDER granting 366 Motion for Leave to File Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
372 AMENDED Memorandum in Support by New Orleans City re 362 MOTION to Amend 159 Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
373 ORDER granting 369 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
374 Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition by Crescent City Lodge No. 2, Fraternal Order of Police, Incorporated, Walter Powers, Jr re 362 MOTION to Amend 159 Consent Decree. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(bwn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
375 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the OPSE implementation schedule set forth in Record Document 342 is AMENDED to postpone supervision by OPSE of secondary employment for Major Special Events at the Mercedes−Benz Superdome until Monday, July 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
376 BIANNUAL STATUS REPORT by New Orleans City (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
377 Letter to the Court from New Orleans Fair Grounds Citizen Advisory Committee dated 6/28/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
378 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the OPSE implementation schedule set forth in Record Document 342 is AMENDED to postpone supervision by OPSE of secondary employment for Major Special Events at the Mercedes−Benz Superdome until Monday, July 21, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/18/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
379 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response to Amicus Curiae by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
380 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/24/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014
07/24/2014
07/24/2014 07/24/2014 07/25/2014 07/25/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014
07/31/2014 08/01/2014 08/14/2014 08/14/2014
08/18/2014 08/19/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014

381 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Approve Secondary Employment Agreement with SMG by New Orleans City and United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 7/24/2014 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 07/24/2014)
382 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 381 MOTION to Approve Secondary Employment Agreement with SMG − Filing attorney did not enter additional filer(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added filer(s). (bwn) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
383 ORDER granting 379 Motion for Leave to File Response to Amicus Curiae. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/24/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
384 Response by New Orleans City to 374 Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Opposition. (bwn) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
385 ORDER granting 381 Motion to Approve Secondary Employment Agreement with SMG. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (bwn) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
386 ORDER AND REASONS granting 362 Motion to Amend the 159 Consent Decree. Paragraph 348 of the Consent Decree entered by this Court on January 11, 2013 shall be amended as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER that the Court adopts the City's proposed schedule for hourly rates and administrative fees for secondary employment and the other provisions requested by the City. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/25/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
387 Secondary Employment Rate and Fee Schedule. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/25/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
391 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/25/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
388 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that as of September 1, 2014, HANO and organizations affiliated with the New Orleans Fair Grounds Race Course shall use NOPD officers for secondary employment only through OPSE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
389 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend Paragraph 376 of the Consent Decree by United States of America and New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Volek, Jude) Modified on 8/1/2014 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 07/31/2014)
390 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 389 MOTION to Amend Paragraph 376 of the Consent Decree − Filing attorney did not enter additional filer(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added filer(s). (bwn) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
392 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Exemption from Paragraph 365 re 159 Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
393 ORDER re 392 MOTION for Exemption from Paragraph 365 re 159 Consent Decree by New Orleans City. IT IS ORDERED that the Office of Police Secondary Employment may staff the August 15, 2014 New Orleans Saints preseason game with NOPD officers without reference to the limitations of Paragraph 365 of the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
394 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parker, Stephen) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
395 ORDER granting 394 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney R. Jonas Geissler for United States of America. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/19/2014. (my) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
397 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/21/2014. (blg) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
401 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

08/22/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/03/2014 09/09/2014 09/11/2014
09/15/2014 09/16/2014
09/22/2014 09/24/2014 09/29/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014 10/28/2014 11/04/2014 11/14/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014 11/20/2014

396 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Apply Additional Rate of Pay by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
398 ORDER granting 396 Motion To Apply Additional Rate of Pay. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
399 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/28/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
400 MONITOR'S THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Third Quarterly Report) (bwn) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
403 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/9/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
402 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 389 Motion Amend Paragraph 376 of the Consent Decree. The Motion is granted insofar as the Court will amend Paragraph 376 of the Consent Decree but denied in that the Court has made additional changeswith input of the partiesto the proposed amendment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
404 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Statues Conference held on 9/15/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
405 ORDER − The Court will convene a hearing on September 24, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom C501, Fifth Floor, United States Courthouse, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans. The Office of the Consent Decree Monitor, the NOPD, and the United States will update the Court on NOPD policies for body−worn and in−car cameras, officer compliance with those policies, training provided to NOPD officers, and the current status of hardware and software supporting use of body−worn and in−car cameras. The public is invited to attend the hearing. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
406 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Letter to Judge on Public Hearing by Community United for Change. (Quigley, William) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
410 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Public Hearing held on 9/24/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
407 ORDER denying 406 Motion for Leave to File Letter to Judge on Public Hearing. The Motion is deficient for failure to include a proposed order. The Court will nonetheless file the letter in the record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/25/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
408 Letter to the Court from Community United for Change dated 9/22/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
409 Response by Community United for Change to 400 MONITOR'S THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT. (bwn) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
411 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/28/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
412 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/4/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
413 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/14/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
414 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Theodore R. Carter, III added to party United States of America(pty:pla).(Carter, Theodore) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
416 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/19/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
415 Letter to the Court from Community United for Change dated 11/16/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 12/19/2014 12/31/2014 02/06/2015 02/06/2015
02/26/2015 03/18/2015 03/19/2015 03/20/2015
04/06/2015 04/06/2015 04/16/2015 04/16/2015
04/16/2015 04/16/2015

417 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Stephen C. Parker as Attorney by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parker, Stephen) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
418 ORDER granting 414 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record Theodore R. Carter, III. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/20/2014. (my) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
419 ORDER granting 417 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stephen C Parker terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/20/2014. (my) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
420 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/20/2014. The Court set a follow−up status conference on policies for December 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
422 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/20/2014. (my) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
421 MONITOR'S THIRD QUARTER OF 2014 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Third Quarter of 2014 Report) (bwn) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
423 BIANNUAL STATUS REPORT by City of New Orleans and New Orleans Police Department (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
424 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for February 24, 2015 is CONTINUED to February 26, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/5/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
425 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the public hearing currently scheduled for February 26, 2015 is RESET for February 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will be held in the courtroom of Judge Ivan Lemelle, Room C−501, 500 Poydras St. The public is welcome to attend. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/5/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
426 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/26/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
427 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Apply Alternative Pay Rate for French Quarter Festival by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
431 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/19/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
428 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 427 Motion to Apply Alternative Pay Rate for French Quarter Festival and, consistent with this Courts Order 387 , the Office of Police Secondary Employment is authorized to apply the rates herein for the 2015 French Quarter Festival. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
429 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/6/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
430 ORDER − With respect to the French Quarter Festival; IT IS ORDERED that the OPSE Director is granted discretion to negotiate the administrative fee. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
432 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Apply Alternative Rate Structure by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
433 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Bryan Lee to be substituted in place of Corey M. Sanders, Jonathan M. Smith, Roy L. Austin, and Thomas E. Perez by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Volek, Jude) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
434 ORDER granting 432 Motion Apply Alternative Rate Structure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
437 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/16/2015. The next public hearing will be held on May 21, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. and will focus on officer supervision, following an update on camera usage and the Training Academy. Reports due to the Court by the next status conference on May 19,

04/20/2015
04/28/2015 05/19/2015 05/26/2015 06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/22/2015 06/23/2015 07/01/2015 07/16/2015
07/21/2015 07/27/2015
08/07/2015
08/12/2015
08/12/2015 09/22/2015

2015 as stated herein. (tsf) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
435 ORDER granting 433 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Bryan Lee for United States of America. Attorney Corey M. Sanders; Jonathan M. Smith; Roy L Austin, Jr and Thomas E. Perez terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/20/2015. (blg) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
436 MONITOR'S FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Quarter of 2014 Report) (bwn) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
438 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference with the Monitor held on 5/19/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
439 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/26/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
440 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Apply an Additional Rate of Pay for Motorcycle Escorts Pricing by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
444 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/18/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
441 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Apply Alternative Fee Structure for Motorcycle Escorts by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
442 ORDER granting 441 Motion Amended MOTION to Apply Alternative Fee Structure for Motorcycle Escorts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the previous Motion 440 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
443 THIRD BIANNUAL STATUS REPORT by New Orleans Cit. (Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
450 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/16/2015. The Court and the parties discussed the status of the compliance with the Consent Decree. The Court informed the parties of the dates herein for status conferences and public hearings to be held during 2016. (bwn) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
446 MONITOR'S REPORT ON NOPD SUPERVISION POLICIES AND PRACTICES. (Attachments: # 1 Report on NOPD Supervision Policies and Practices) (tsf) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
445 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the status conference currently set for Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED AND RESET for Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the public hearing currently set for Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED AND RESET for Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/24/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
447 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the status conference previously canceled is REINSTATED and will be held in chambers on August 18, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the replacement status conference set for September 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. is CANCELED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
448 ORDER that the 447 status conference previously canceled is REINSTATED and will be held in chambers on September 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Further stated herein are the meetings scheduled for the remainder of the 2015 calendar year. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/12/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
449 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NOPD OFFICER SELECTION PRACTICES. (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on NOPD Officer Selection Practices) (tsf) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
451 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/22/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/24/2015 10/02/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/15/2015
11/19/2015 12/02/2015
12/02/2015 12/03/2015 12/16/2015 12/16/2015 12/17/2015 12/18/2015 12/18/2015 01/06/2016 01/14/2016

452 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Public Hearing held on 9/24/2015. The next public hearing will be held on November 19, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. and will focus on misconduct and discipline. (bwn) Main Document 452 replaced 9/28/2015 to correct date of next public hearing(tsf). (Entered: 09/28/2015)
453 MONITOR'S FIRST AND SECOND QUARTER OF 2015 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 First and Second Quarter of 2015 Report) (tsf) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
454 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Unopposed Motion for Limited Exemption From Paragraph 365 by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Sharonda) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
455 ORDER granting 454 Unopposed Motion for Limited Exemption From Paragraph 365 of the Consent Decree, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/14/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
456 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/15/2015. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. The meetings scheduled during November of 2015 as well as January and February of 2016 have been revised. The updated schedules are revised as noted within. (bwn) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
457 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/19/2015. The meetings scheduled during January and February of 2016 have been revised. The updated schedule is as follows herein. (bwn) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
458 ***STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD per order 463 *** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION For Limited Exemptions From Paragraph 365 by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Cherrell Simms Taplin added to party New Orleans City(pty:dft).(Taplin, Cherrell) Modified on 12/18/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 12/02/2015)
459 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record , MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Rebecca Dietz and Cherrell R. Simms to be substituted in place of Sharonda R. Williams by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
460 ORDER granting 459 Motion to Enroll Attorneys Rebecca H. Dietz and Cherrel R. Simms as Additional Counsel of Record for New Orleans City. Attorney Sharonda R. Williams terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
461 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Strike 458 MOTION For Limited Exemptions From Paragraph 365 by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Taplin, Cherrell) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
462 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION For Temporary Exemption from Work Limits Pursuant to Consent Decree Paragraph 487 by New Orleans City and United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Taplin, Cherrell) Modified on 12/17/2015 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 12/16/2015)
465 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/17/2015. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (cml) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
463 ORDER granting 461 Motion to Strike. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Unopposed Motion for Limited Exemptions from Paragraph 365, Record Document 458, filed on December 2, 2015 be stricken from the record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
464 ORDER granting 462 Motion for Temporary Exemption from Work Limits Pursuant to Consent Decree Paragraph 487. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
466 STATUS REPORT Biannual Report by New Orleans City (Hansell, Churita) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
467 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Paragraph 258(c) of the Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/15/2016 01/21/2016 02/16/2016 02/18/2016 02/26/2016 03/02/2016 03/17/2016 03/24/2016 03/25/2016 04/06/2016 04/12/2016 04/13/2016 04/21/2016 05/17/2016 05/19/2016 05/31/2016
06/30/2016 07/01/2016 07/27/2016 08/18/2016

468 ORDER granting 467 Motion to Amend Paragraph 258. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
470 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/21/2016. (bwn) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
471 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/16/2016. (bwn) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
469 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Public hearing held on 2/18/2016. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
472 MONITOR'S THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Third and Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015) (bwn) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
473 ORDER that the Status Conference is reset for 3/17/2016 01:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/02/2016.(caa) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
484 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/17/2016. (cg) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
474 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Apply an Additional Rate of Pay for French Quarter Festival by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
475 ORDER granting 474 Motion to Apply an Additional Rate of Pay. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
476 Petition re Officer Eddie Dema. (bwn) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
477 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Apply Rate of Pay for Jazz and Heritage Festival by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
478 ORDER granting 477 Motion to Apply Rate of Pay for Jazz and Heritage Festival. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
485 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/21/2016. (clc) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
486 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/17/2016. (clc) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
479 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Public Hearing held on 5/19/2016. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (tsf) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
480 TRANSCRIPT of Public Hearing held on May 19, 2016 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2016. (rsg) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
481 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Approve Renewal of Secondary Employment Agreement by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
482 ORDER granting 481 Motion to approval renewal of secondary employment agreement with SMG. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/1/16. (cg) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
483 STATUS REPORT Biannual Report by New Orleans City (Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
489 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Public Hearing held on 8/18/2016. (Court Reporter Lanie Smith.) (tsf) (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/25/2016 08/29/2016 09/01/2016 09/15/2016 09/16/2016 09/26/2016 10/13/2016 10/13/2016 10/20/2016
10/27/2016
11/15/2016 12/15/2016 01/09/2017 01/18/2017 01/19/2017 01/26/2017 02/09/2017 02/10/2017

487 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/16/2016. (cg) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
488 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Renew Agreement With SMG by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
490 ORDER granting 488 Motion to Approve Renewal of Secondary Employment Agreement with SMG, filed by the City of New Orleans. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/31/16. (cg) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
491 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Paul A. Killebrew added to party United States of America(pty:pla).(Killebrew, Paul) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
492 ORDER granting 491 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/16/16. (cg) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
493 MONITOR'S FIRST AND SECOND QUARTER OF 2016 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 First and Second Quarterly Report of 2016) (tsf) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
494 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Suspend Paragraph 273 of the Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
495 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/13/2016. (cg) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
497 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/20/2016. The Court informed the parties of the dates for status conferences and public hearings to be held during 2017 and 2018 and are attached hereto. (Attachments: # 1 2017 Meeting Schedule, # 2 2018 Meeting Schedule) (cg) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
496 ORDER granting 494 Motion to Suspend Paragraph 273 of the Consent Decree and that paragraph 273 of the Consent Decree entered by this Court on January 11, 2013 is temporarily suspended insofar and only insofar as the suspension enables the New Orleans Police Department to increase the size of recruit classes 178 and 179 to 40 candidates per class. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
498 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/15/2016. (cg) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
499 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/15/2016. (cg) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
500 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a status conference be held in chambers on Thursday, January 12, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/9/2017.(cg) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
501 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NOPD BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PRACTICES (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on NOPD Background Investigation Practices) (tsf) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
503 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/19/2017. (tsf) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
502 ORDER − At the request of the parties, the status conference scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., is hereby RESET for Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/25/2017.(cg) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
504 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraph 365 by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
505 ORDER granting 504 Motion to Amend/Correct Paragraph 365 of the Consent Decree. IT IS ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion is GRANTED and that paragraph 365 of the Consent Decree entered by this Court on January 11, 2013, shall be replaced with the language herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/9/2017. (cg) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/14/2017 02/14/2017 02/15/2017 03/01/2017
03/16/2017 04/19/2017 04/20/2017 04/25/2017 04/28/2017 05/01/2017 05/02/2017 05/02/2017 05/05/2017 05/16/2017 05/19/2017 05/23/2017 06/05/2017 06/06/2017

506 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 340, 365 of Consent Decree by New Orleans City and United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified on 2/14/2017 (cg). (Entered: 02/14/2017)
509 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/14/2017. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (cg) Modified text on 4/17/2017 (clc). (Entered: 03/16/2017)
507 ORDER granting 506 Motion to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 340 and 365 of the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/15/2017. (cg) Modified on 2/15/2017 to edit text. (tsf) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
508 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Jennifer L. Mondino on behalf of United States of America. Attorney Jennifer L. Mondino added to party United States of America(pty:pla).(Mondino, Jennifer) Modified on 3/2/2017 chambers (cg). (Entered: 03/01/2017)
510 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/16/2017. (tsf) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
511 STATUS REPORT Biannual Report by New Orleans City (Dietz, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
518 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/20/2017. (clc) (Main Document 518 replaced on 10/23/2017 to correct time of conference) (tsf). (Entered: 05/16/2017)
512 **DEFICIENT** NOTICE of Appearance by Megan R Marks on behalf of United States of America. Attorney Megan R Marks added to party United States of America(pty:pla).(Marks, Megan) Modified on 4/26/2017 (clc). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
513 ORDER: Status Conference reset for 6/15/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. See Document for updated schedule. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/28/2017.(clc) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
514 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Megan R. Marks by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mondino, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
515 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 514 MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Megan R. Marks.**Document does not contain Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Section E and Magistrate 2.** (clc) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
516 ORDER granting 514 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Megan R Marks for United States of America. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/2/2017. (clc) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
517 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON NOPD USES OF FORCE. (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on NOPD Uses of Force) (tsf) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
521 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/16/2017. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (clc) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
519 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend Paragraphs 143,328,404 of Consent Decree by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified text on 5/22/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 05/19/2017)
520 ORDER granting 519 Motion to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 143, 328, and 404 of the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/23/2017. (tsf) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
522 ORDER : Status Conference currently scheduled for June 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. is RESET for June 14, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/5/2017.(clc) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
523 ORDER: The Court will hold a special hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom C−322 to examine the jurisdiction and responsibility of the New Orleans Police Department. The Parties to the Consent Decree and the Consent Decree Monitor are ordered to attend the hearing and to be prepared to discuss the matters set forth

06/13/2017 06/13/2017 06/14/2017 06/19/2017 06/29/2017
07/20/2017 07/24/2017 08/04/2017
08/29/2017 09/20/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017
10/19/2017 10/23/2017 11/14/2017

herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/6/2017.(clc) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
524 ORDER: Status Conference reset for 6/14/2017 01:30 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. The updated schedule is herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/13/2017.(clc) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
527 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A special hearing was held on the record on June 13, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., before Judge Morgan to examine the jurisdiction and responsibility of the New Orleans Police Department. (clc) Modified on 7/19/2017 to correct filing date (tsf). (Entered: 07/18/2017)
532 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/14/2017. (bwn) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
525 MONITOR'S THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTER OF 2016 REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Third and Fourth Quarterly Report of 2016) (tsf) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
526 ORDER: ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for August 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to August 29, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the public hearing currently scheduled for August 17, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to August 31, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to observe the updated schedule herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/29/2017.(clc) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
533 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/20/2017. (bwn) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
528 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND BIENNIAL COMMUNITY SURVEY. (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on the Results of the Second Biennial Community Survey) (tsf) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
529 ORDER re 159 Consent Decree and 294 ORDER setting forth the terms governing the relationship among the City, the Monitor, and DOJ. The Court's order of August 9, 2013 is hereby modified (a) to extend the Term set forth in Section VI.A. of the Monitoring Agreement to August 9, 2020; (b) to provide for hourly rates during the extended Term as set forth on Attachment A hereto; and (c) to set a new fee cap (not including technical assistance) of $6.4 million. All other terms of the original Order and Monitoring Agreement shall remain unchanged. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(clc) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
535 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/29/2017. (bwn) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
536 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/20/2017. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (clc) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
530 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 74, 76, 83, 249, 251, 256, 258, 357, 358, 366, 374 and 379 of the Consent Decree by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marks, Megan) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
531 ORDER granting 530 Motion to Amend/Correct Paragraphs of the Consent Decree. ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Paragraphs 76, 83, 249, 251, 256, 258, 357, 366 and 379 of the Consent Decree entered by this Court on January 11, 2013, shall be replaced with the language herein. FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Paragraphs 74, 358 and 374 of the Decree shall be stricken. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/29/2017. (clc) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
537 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/19/2017. (bwn) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
534 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for October 19, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. is RESET to October 19, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. The updated schedule is found herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
541 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on the record on November 14, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Morgan to discuss the status of the consent decree. (clc) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

11/16/2017
12/04/2017 12/05/2017 12/14/2017 12/21/2017 01/18/2018 01/22/2018 02/20/2018 03/22/2018 03/28/2018 03/28/2018 03/29/2018
03/29/2018 03/29/2018 04/10/2018

538 ORDER: ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for April 26, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. is CANCELLED. Individual meetings will be scheduled with the Court and the monitor during the week of April 30, 2018. FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for May 22, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to May 29, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the public hearing currently scheduled for May 24, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to May 31, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to observe the updated schedule as follows.(clc) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
539 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Carter, Theodore) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
540 ORDER granting 539 Motion to Enroll Attorney Puneet Cheema as Additional Counsel of Record for United States of America. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
544 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/14/2017. (bwn) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
542 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PATROL RESPONSE AUDIT REPORT (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on the Domestic Violence Patrol Response Audit Report) (tsf) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
553 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/18/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
543 **WITHDRAWN− per Rec. Doc. #548 ORDER** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraphs by New Orleans City, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dietz, Rebecca) Modified text on 1/23/2018 (clc). Modified on 3/29/2018 (clc). (Entered: 01/22/2018)
554 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/20/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
557 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/22/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
545 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Withdraw 543 MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraphs 14, 331,345,366 and 373 by New Orleans City, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) Modified text on 3/29/2018 to add joint filer. (clc). (Entered: 03/28/2018)
546 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 159 Consent Decree Paragraphs 331, 345, 346, 366 and 373 by New Orleans City,, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) Modified text on 3/29/2018 to add joint filer. (clc). (Entered: 03/28/2018)
547 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 545 Joint MOTION to Withdraw Document re 543 MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraphs 14, 331,345,366 and 373, 546 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraphs 331, 345, 346, 366 and 373.**Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary.** (clc) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
548 ORDER granting 545 Motion to Withdraw 543 MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Paragraphs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/28/2018. (clc) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
549 ORDER granting 546 Motion to Amend/Correct 159 Consent Decree Paragraphs 331, 345, 346, 366 and 373 as shown herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/28/2018. (clc) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
550 MONITOR'S ANNUAL REPORT OF 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Annual Report of 2017) (tsf) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

05/02/2018 05/03/2018 05/28/2018 05/29/2018 05/30/2018 06/21/2018 07/17/2018 08/14/2018
08/29/2018 09/07/2018 10/02/2018 10/02/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018 01/10/2019

551 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for July 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. is RESET for July 17, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
552 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT of the New Orleans Police Department by New Orleans City. (Hansell, Churita) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
555 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Sunni LeBeouf to be substituted in place of Rebecca Dietz and Christy C. Harowski by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Taplin, Cherrell) (Entered: 05/28/2018)
558 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 5/29/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
556 ORDER granting 555 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Sunni Jones LeBeouf for New Orleans City. Attorney Rebecca H. Dietz and Christy C. Harowski terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
559 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/21/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
560 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/17/2018. The Court and the parties discussed the status of compliance with the Consent Decree. (bwn) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
563 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/14/2018. IT IS ORDERED that the monthly meetings currently scheduled for September 20, 2018, October 18, 2018, and December 13, 2018, are hereby CANCELED. Individual meetings will be scheduled with the Court and the monitor during these months. The updated schedule is attached hereto with the revised dates shown in bold. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties observe the dates for status conferences and public hearings to be held during 2019 and attached hereto. Individual meetings will be scheduled with the Court and the monitor during the remaining months.(Court Reporter Nichelle Drake/Jodi Simcox.) (Attachments: # 1 Revised 2018 Meeting Schedule, # 2 2019 Meeting Schedule) (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
561 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 87, 228, 311, 366, 376(1) and 430 of the Consent Decree by United States of America and New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marks, Megan) Modified on 8/30/2018 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 08/29/2018)
562 ORDER granting 561 Motion to Amend/Correct Paragraphs 87, 228, 311, 366, 376(1) and 430 of the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
564 ORDER entering into the record the attached Amended and Restated Consent Decree, reflecting all changes through this date for the benefit of the public and the parties. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Consent Decree − Redline Version, # 2 Amended Consent Decree) (tsf) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
565 Amended and Restated Consent Decree which reflects all changes through this date for the benefit of the public and the parties. (tsf) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
566 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel Attorney Donesia D. Turner to be substituted in place of Cherrell S. Taplin by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) Modified text on 11/27/2018 (sbs). (Entered: 11/27/2018)
567 ORDER granting 566 Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel. Added attorney Donesia Diane Turner for New Orleans City. Attorney Cherrell Simms Taplin terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/27/18. (sbs) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
568 Letter to the Court from the City of New Orleans, dated December 6, 2018, in regards to televising the public hearing set for January 25, 2019. (tsf) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/10/2019 01/14/2019 01/16/2019 01/16/2019 01/22/2019
01/24/2019
01/25/2019 02/26/2019 03/29/2019 04/04/2019
04/05/2019 06/14/2019
11/12/2019 11/12/2019 11/14/2019 12/09/2019

569 Response, dated December 13, 2018, to the 568 letter from the City of New Orleans. (tsf) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
570 Letter, dated January 14, 2019, to the Court from Bill Quigley, counsel for Citizens United for Change, in regards to the 568 letter from the City of New Orleans. (tsf) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
571 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Continuance by United States of America.(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Volek, Jude) Modified text on 1/17/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 01/16/2019)
572 ORDER denying 571 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/16/2019. (tsf) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
573 TEXT ORDER (No PDF Document Attached).The Court has requested the Monitoring Team and the parties to present a public status report on the New Orleans Police Department Consent Decree. The event will be held on Friday, January 25, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at the Loyola University School of Law, 526 Pine St. The public and the media are invited to attend. Public comments will not be taken during the proceeding. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(Morgan, Susie) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
574 MONITOR'S COMPREHENSIVE REASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 456 OF THE CONSENT DECREE (Attachments: # 1 Comprehensive Reassessment Pursuant to Paragraph 456 of the Consent Decree) (tsf) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
575 MONITOR'S REPORT ON NOPD PROGRESS UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE (tsf) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
576 Letter to the Court re 574 MONITOR'S COMPREHENSIVE REASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 456 OF THE CONSENT DECREE from Community United for Change. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
577 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the 2019 meeting schedule is hereby revised. Parties are to observe the updated schedule herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
578 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel Attorney Erica A. Therio to be substituted in place of Mary Katherine Kaufman by New Orleans City. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hansell, Churita) Modified text on 4/5/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 04/04/2019)
579 ORDER granting 578 Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel. Added attorney Erica A. Therio for New Orleans City. Attorney Mary Katherine Kaufman terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/5/19. (sbs) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
580 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the public hearing currently scheduled for 7/18/2019 at 1:30 p.m. is CONVERTED to a status conference. Parties are to observe the updated schedule as outlined herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/14/2019.(sbs) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
581 MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD BIENNIAL COMMUNITY SURVEY (Attachments: # 1 Special Report on the Results of the Third Biennial Community Survey) (tsf) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
582 MOTION for Intervention by Gary Juengain. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Pt. 1, # 2 Exhibits Pt. 2, # 3 Exhibits Pt. 3, # 4 Exhibits Pt. 4, # 5 Exhibits Pt. 5, # 6 Exhibits Pt. 6)(sbs) Modified text on 11/14/2019 (sbs). (Entered: 11/13/2019)
583 ORDER − Movant's 582 Motion for Intervention is DENIED AS UNTIMELY. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/14/2019. (sbs) (CC: Juengain) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
584 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the public hearing scheduled for November 21, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to December 17, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference currently scheduled for December 19, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. is hereby CANCELED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

06/03/2020
06/09/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/11/2020

585 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown.(lag) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
586 Second MOTION for Intervention by Gary Juengain. (sbs) Modified text on 6/9/2020 (sbs). (Entered: 06/09/2020)
587 ORDER denying as untimely 586 Second Motion for Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/10/2020. (sbs) (CC: Juengain) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
588 Third MOTION for Intervention by Gary Juengain.(sbs) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
589 ORDER denying 588 Third Motion for Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/11/2020. (CC: Mr. Juengain) (sbs) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

 
 CCaassee: 21:31-23-0c1v6-10192D4-oScMum-JeCntW: 00D51o2c2u6m3e2n0t7265PaFgiele: d1 06/D0a6t/e13FilePda: g0e6/105o/f23013

IN 'I'H 1<: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EASTEUR.NS.DDISISTTRRICICTTOCfOLUORUTISIANA
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
lUI: JUN -62013 q

WILLIAM W. BlEVINS

No. 13-30161

CLERK

~y 1'J..· ,q.;l,'-I.[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellee United States filed suit against appellant City of New Orleans ("the City") alleging various illegal practices by the New Orleans Police Department. The same date the suit was filed, the parties presented the district court with a proposed Consent Decree. The district court subsequently adopted the Consent Decree and entered it as its final judgment in the action on January 11, 2013. The City thereafter moved the district court to vacate the Consent Decree. The court denied the City's motion. The City appealed, and also moved the district court to stay implementation of the
::0QIl._---- :_:xF: fti-"---- Consent Decree pending appeal. The district court denied that motion as well _ _ _C~mOep ~ Doc. No. _ __

CCaasese: 123:1-320-1cv6-10192D4o-cSuMm-eJnCtW: 005D1o2c2u6m32e0n7t 265PagFeil:e2d 06D/0a6te/1F3ilePd:a0g6e/025o/2f0313
and the City now re-urges its motion for stay pending appeal before this court.
We review a district court's denial of a stay pending appeal for abuse of discretion. Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 983 F.2d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1992). The factors for evaluating the appropriateness of a stay pending appeal are well-established: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). "The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [judicial] discretion." Nken v. Holder, 556
u.s. 418, 433-34 (2009).
The City has failed to meet this burden. The City's motion fails to address, let alone satisfy, the requisite strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal. The City similarly has failed to demonstrate that the other three factors weigh in favor of granting a stay.
IT IS ORDERED that the temporary order entered May 30, 2013 is hereby VACATED and the City's motion for stay pending appeal is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal shall be expedited.

Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 265 Filed 06/06/13 Page 3 of 3

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court ofAppeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

June OS, 2013
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
No. 13-30161, USA v. City of New Orleans USDC No. 2:12-CV-1924
Enclosed is an order entered in this case.
In light of this order, the briefing schedule will proceed as follows:
Appellant's opening brief will be due June 26, 2013_
Appellees' brief will be due July 11, 2013.
Any reply brief will be due July 18, 2013.
The Court has tentatively set oral argument for the week of August 5, 2013. You will receive a printed calendar prior to the sitting.
THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO ADHERE TO THE ABOVE EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY EXTENSIONS OF TIME IN ORDER TO ENSURE AVAILABILITY OF THE BRIEFS TO THE COURT PRIOR TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT DATE.
Additionally, appellant is reminded that the $455 appeal docketing and filing fees have not yet been paid. Failure to pay the fees by the current deadline of June 13, 2013, will result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute.
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: ~~?'r
Alllson G. Lopez, Deputy Clerk 504-310-7702
Ms_ April J. Anderson Mr_ Brian Joseph Capitelli Ms. Emily Anna Gunston Ms. Angela Macdonald Miller Ms. Jessica Dunsay Silver Ms. Sharonda R. Williams Mr. William W. Blevins

 
 Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings Involving the New Orleans Police Department | OPA | Department of Justice

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Thursday, March 17, 2011

Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings Involving the New Orleans Police Department
WASHINGTON – Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department today announced its findings that the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has engaged in patterns of misconduct that violate the Constitution and federal law. The investigation, announced on May 15, 2010, was conducted pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Justice Department’s thorough and independent investigation involved extensive community engagement and in-depth review of NOPD practices. Department attorneys and investigators held interviews and meetings with NOPD officers, supervisors and command staff, as well as members of the public, city and state officials, and other community stakeholders. The Justice Department participated in more than 40 community meetings with various advocacy groups, civic leaders and public officials. The investigation also involved thorough review of a wide range of NOPD documents, as well as ride-alongs and other opportunities to observe police activity. On May 5, 2010, Mayor Mitch Landrieu sent a letter to the Justice Department asking for an independent investigation of NOPD’s systems and operations.
The Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law occurred in several areas, including:
Use of excessive force; Unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests; Biased policing, including:
Racial and ethnic profiling and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) discrimination;
A systemic failure to provide effective policing services to persons with limited

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-investigative-findings-involving-new-orleans-police-department[8/17/2016 3:53:25 PM]

Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings Involving the New Orleans Police Department | OPA | Department of Justice

English proficiency; and A systemic failure to investigate sexual assaults and domestic violence.
The Justice Department also found a number of long-standing and entrenched practices within NOPD that caused or contributed to these patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct, including:
Failed systems for officer recruitment, promotion and evaluation; Inadequate training; Inadequate supervision; Ineffective systems of complaint intake, investigation and adjudication; A failed “Paid Detail” system; Failure to engage in community oriented policing; Inadequate officer assistance and support services; and Lack of sufficient community oversight.

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

“For far too long, the New Orleans Police Department failed to adequately protect the citizens of the city. This was a result of its failure to ensure respect for and adherence to the Constitution,” said Deputy Attorney General James Cole. “Today’s findings should serve as a foundation not only to rebuild the police department, but to help restore the community’s trust in fair, just and effective law enforcement.”

“Our findings show that the problems facing the NOPD are wide ranging, systemic, and deeply rooted in the culture of the Department,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Our team looks forward to working with the people of New Orleans, Mayor Landrieu, Chief Serpas and his officers in creating and implementing a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform.”

“Today, the Justice Department has taken a critical step forward towards building a police department which the people deserve and desperately need – one which is free from corruption and which is dedicated to the protection of its citizens,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana James Letten. “Through this partnership, and through the tireless efforts of our U S Attorney’s Office, the department’s Civil Rights Division and our federal partners, we will continue to do whatever it takes to reach these essential goals and to restore trust in the men and women of the police department.”
The Justice Department will work with the NOPD and the city of New Orleans to address the violations of constitutional and federal law by developing and implementing comprehensive reforms that will reduce crime, ensure respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, and restore public confidence in the NOPD. The NOPD must develop and implement new policies and protocols and train its officers in effective and constitutional policing. In addition, the NOPD must implement systems to ensure accountability, foster police-community partnerships, improve the quality of policing to all parts of the city and eliminate unlawful bias from all levels of policing decisions.

This investigation was not related to any ongoing federal criminal prosecutions of NOPD officers.

This investigation was conducted by the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division with https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-investigative-findings-involving-new-orleans-police-department[8/17/2016 3:53:25 PM]

Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings Involving the New Orleans Police Department | OPA | Department of Justice
the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, the investigators consulted with a number of police experts from around the country and with Department experts within the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office on Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention and the Access to Justice Initiative. Over the past six months, the Community Relations Service has facilitated community participation, allowing community members to express their concerns and to share their ideas.

The executive summary and full report can be found at www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/nopd.php . Over the next few weeks and months, Department of Justice personnel will be meeting with interested community groups. Comments or suggestions can also be e-mailed to Community.NOPD@usdoj.gov .

11-342

Civil Rights Division Updated September 15, 2014

ABOUT The Attorney General Budget & Performance Strategic Plans History
AGENCIES
BUSINESS Business Opportunities Small & Disadvantaged Business Grants

| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RESOURCES Forms Publications Case Highlights Legislative Histories Information for Victims in Large Cases

CAREERS Legal Careers Interns, Recent Graduates, and Fellows Veteran Recruitment
CONTACT

NEWS The Justice Blog Public Schedule Videos Photo Gallery

JUSTICE.GOV

Archive

Social Media

Accessibility

For Employees

Adobe Reader

Office of the

FOIA

Inspector General

No FEAR Act

Government

Information QualityResources

Privacy Policy

Open Government

Legal Policies & Plain Writing

Disclaimers

USA.gov

BusinessUSA

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-investigative-findings-involving-new-orleans-police-department[8/17/2016 3:53:25 PM]

 
 Justice Department Announces Consent Decree with City of New Orleans to Resolve Allegations of Unlawful Misconduct by New Orleans Police Department | OP...

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Justice Department Announces Consent Decree with City of New Orleans to Resolve Allegations of Unlawful Misconduct by New
Orleans Police Department
Negotiated Agreement Concludes Two-Year Investigation and Begins Federal Court Oversight of Police Department Reform
The Department of Justice announced today that the United States has entered into a comprehensive, cooperative consent decree with the city of New Orleans to resolve allegations of unlawful police misconduct by the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). The filing of the consent decree in federal court in New Orleans continues the process of reforming the NOPD and begins federal court oversight of that reform to ensure effective and constitutional policing in New Orleans.
“ Today’s action represents a critical step forward. It reaffirms the Justice Department’s commitment to the highest standards of fairness and professionalism and underscores our determination to work alongside our law enforcement partners to protect not only the safety – but the essential civil rights – of everyone in this country,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.
The consent decree requires NOPD to make broad changes in policies and practices related to use of force; stops, searches and arrests; custodial interrogations; photographic line-ups; preventing discriminatory policing; community engagement; recruitment; training; officer assistance and support; performance evaluations and promotions; supervision; misconduct investigations; and NOPD’s system of secondary employment, also known as paid details.
The agreement also requires more transparency by NOPD, encourages greater civilian oversight and increases community interaction and partnerships. The agreement requires close and comprehensive oversight by a court appointed monitoring team, which will periodically submit public reports regarding NOPD’s progress. The consent decree will remain in effect until the city demonstrates it has complied with its provisions for two years, or until the monitor’s assessment of the agreement’s outcome measures demonstrates sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing.

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-consent-decree-city-new-orleans-resolve-allegations-unlawful[8/17/2016 3:56:15 PM]

Justice Department Announces Consent Decree with City of New Orleans to Resolve Allegations of Unlawful Misconduct by New Orleans Police Department | OP...

“The consent decree, which is unprecedented in scope and nature, is designed to ensure that comprehensive, sustainable reforms are made in the New Orleans Police Department,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez. “We will continue our partnership with Mayor Landrieu, the police department and the community to ensure that the critical reforms are achieved.”
“This groundbreaking agreement represents a critical milestone in the recovery of New Orleans and a victory for our city, its police department and most of all its citizens,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana Jim Letten. “The consent decree will serve as a blueprint for the New Orleans Police Department, so that it may become a world class police department – one which will be more effective in protecting its citizens against all threats and dangers.

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

The consent decree is the product of the United States’ civil pattern or practice investigation of NOPD, which began in May 2010 and resulted in a comprehensive report in which the department found that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and other federal laws. The Justice Department’s investigation found a pattern or practice of excessive force, including stops, searches and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The investigation also found evidence of discriminatory policing based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. This civil pattern or practice investigation was separate from the numerous federal criminal civil rights prosecutions of NOPD officers during this time period.

The Justice Department’s civil pattern or practice investigation was informed by 12 experts on police practices, including a number of current and former police professionals. The investigation included numerous onsite visits and observations of police-community interactions, including interviews with New Orleans officials, NOPD command staff, supervisors and police officers. Additionally, the department’s investigation reviewed more than 36,000 pages of documents and held interviews with residents, community groups and other stakeholders.

The investigation was conducted in accordance with the police misconduct provision (Section 14141) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA) , the antidiscrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Section 14141 of VCCLEA, the Justice Department has the authority to file civil suits against law enforcement agencies that engage in a pattern or practice of misconduct. The department also has the authority under the Safe Streets Act and Title VI to file suit against law enforcement agencies that engage in discrimination if they receive federal funds.

The city of New Orleans and NOPD cooperated throughout the investigation, from inviting the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to conduct the investigation, to agreeing to enter a consent decree at its conclusion. For the past several months, New Orleans and the department have been negotiating this consent decree, designed to serve as a blueprint for reforming NOPD. NOPD’s implementation of the agreement will be overseen by the federal court, including a courtapproved monitor to be jointly selected by the city and the United States.

The Civil Rights Division currently has more active police pattern or practice investigations of law enforcement agencies than any other time in the division’s history. Increasingly, these investigations, including the New Orleans Police Department investigation, are initiated at the request of the law enforcement agency itself.

12-917

Office of the Attorney General Updated September 15, 2014

| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-consent-decree-city-new-orleans-resolve-allegations-unlawful[8/17/2016 3:56:15 PM]